Freedom of and From Religion

[doggie]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moye ... 81942.html

The president did something agile and wise the other day. And something quite important to the health of our politics. He reached up and snuffed out what some folks wanted to make into a cosmic battle between good and evil. No, said the president, we're not going to turn the argument over contraception into Armageddon, this is an honest difference between Americans, and I'll not see it escalated into a holy war. So instead of the government requiring Catholic hospitals and other faith-based institutions to provide employees with health coverage involving contraceptives, the insurance companies will offer that coverage, and offer it free.

The Catholic bishops had cast the president's intended policy as an infringement on their religious freedom; they hold birth control to be a mortal sin, and were incensed that the government might coerce them to treat it otherwise. The president in effect said: No quarrel there; no one's going to force you to violate your doctrine. But Catholics are also Americans, and if an individual Catholic worker wants coverage, she should have access to it -- just like any other American citizen. Under the new plan, she will. She can go directly to the insurer, and the religious institution is off the hook.

When the president announced his new plan, the bishops were caught flat-footed. It was so ... so reasonable. In fact, leaders of several large, Catholic organizations have now said yes to the idea. But the bishops have since regrouped, and are now opposing any mandate to provide contraceptives even if their institutions are not required to pay for them. And for their own reasons, Republican leaders in Congress have weighed in on the bishops' side. They're demanding, and will get, a vote in the Senate.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, says:

"The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion. It's right there in the First Amendment. You can't miss it, right there in the very First Amendment to our Constitution. And the government doesn't get to decide for religious people what their religious beliefs are. They get to decide that."

But here's what Republicans don't get, or won't tell you. And what Obama manifestly does get. First, the war's already lost: 98 percent of Catholic women of child-bearing age have used contraceptives. Second, on many major issues, the bishops are on Obama's side -- not least on extending unemployment benefits, which they call "a moral obligation." Truth to tell, on economic issues, the bishops are often to the left of some leading Democrats, even if both sides are loathe to admit it. Furthermore -- and shhh, don't repeat this, even if the president already has -- the Catholic Church funded Obama's first community organizing, back in Chicago. Ah, politics.

So the battle over contraception no longer seems apocalyptic. No heavenly hosts pitted against the forces of Satan. It's a political brawl, not a crusade of believers or infidels. The president skillfully negotiated the line between respect for the religious sphere and protection of the spiritual dignity and freedom of individuals. If you had listened carefully to the speech Barack Obama made in 2009 at the University of Notre Dame, you could have seen it coming:

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem-cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships might be relieved. The question then is, "How do we work through these conflicts?"

We Americans have wrestled with that question from the beginning. Some of our forebearers feared the church would corrupt the state. Others feared the state would corrupt the church. It's been a real tug-of-war, sometimes quite ugly. Churches and religious zealots did get punitive laws passed against what they said were moral and religious evils: blasphemy, breaking the Sabbath, alcohol, gambling, books, movies, plays ... and yes, contraception. But churches also fought to end slavery, help workers organize and pass progressive laws. Of course, government had its favorites at times, for much of our history, it privileged the Protestant majority. And in my lifetime alone, it's gone back and forth on how to apply the First Amendment to ever- changing circumstances among people so different from each other. The Supreme Court, for example, first denied, then affirmed, the right of the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse, on religious grounds, to salute the flag.

So here we are once again, arguing over how to honor religious liberty without it becoming the liberty to impose on others moral beliefs they don't share. Our practical solution is the one Barack Obama embraced the other day: protect freedom of religion -- and protect freedom from religion. Can't get more American than that.

[MadameX]

If this were really about freedom of religion for the right wing and the conservative religious leaders of this country, you'd be right. But it isn't. It is about power. The truly disgusting thing is that they are using religion as a shield so no can deal with the real issues. Because they know that they'd lose without it.

[BravaAmica]

I think the religious right's issue is just that- the BC compromise respects freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion. And the religious right hates that.

[Austin]

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem-cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships might be relieved. The question then is, "How do we work through these conflicts?"

I cannot fathom why it is so difficult for religious people to understand that public policy cannot be driven by religious belief. We are a pluralistic society and represent more religions than we can count. Any time I have asked a person who proclaims to be against gay marriage to back their position after taking religion out of the picture, they can't. They resort to an "ewww" factor, which is irrelevant.

Why is it soooo incredibly hard to understand that:

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one

If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it

The only real argument, in my view, against any of these issues is religiously-based.

I say to them: Have your religion and let everyone else have their beliefs. They don't affect you so how do you explain your virulent attitudes about these issues other than you're just sticking your nose in the business of others? No one is going to force you to marry a person of the same gender, no one is going to force you to have an abortion, and no one is going to force-feed you oral contraceptives, so go on about your life and let others do the same.

[She Who Laughs]

This whole issue of it being *free* of charge is so bogus anyway. Nothing is free and no insurance company is going to give something away without compensating for the cost in another way. So while the woman may be able to obtain the actual BC product for free, she (and others) will end up paying for it with higher premiums. And knowing how insurance companies are in it to make money, they will most likely raise their premiums to a much higher level than what is needed to actually cover the cost of the BC.

[Austin]

If this were really about freedom of religion for the right wing and the conservative religious leaders of this country, you'd be right. But it isn't. It is about power. The truly disgusting thing is that they are using religion as a shield so no can deal with the real issues. Because they know that they'd lose without it.

ITA. This is about reaching their ultimate goal, which is to remove the ability of women to self-determine. If women cannot determine their fertility, they cannot self-determine at all. It really has nothing to do with religion or politics. Both are just vehicles to move their agenda along.

[smores]

I would love to slap Mitch McConnell and all the other idiots who use religion (and freedom of religion for the "poor, persecuted Christians") as an excuse. I need to register to vote here in KY so I can vote his sorry ass out of office.

Also, I just dropped my prescription for more BC off at my local pharmacy here in KY an hour ago and thanks to my husband's insurance, it's free. McConnell can suck it.

[duchess0592]

The establishment clause reads

Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of

There is no Freedom from religion in the constitution.

Slight jumping off point but if a city hall wanted to put a nintivity scene up during Chrismas, they have the right to it because they are not congress and they are not making a law.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I thought it was quite a nice compromise. The religious institutions have an "out" in that they can just say the insurance companies are mandated to provide the coverage, so it doesn't matter which one they choose. Meanwhile individual Catholic employees (there among the possibly non-Catholic employees) can CHOOSE to not use birth control if they're among that segment of Catholics that does believe it's wrong. If they want to sin, it's on THEM.

Between this decision coming out (pulling away the "it's about freedom of religion!!" fig-leaf) and the "just put an aspirin between your legs" comments showing how it really is about the age-old "don't sleep around!!!," and then saying a woman was "unqualified" to talk about women's reproductive health in a meeting of otherwise only men - it's been a great week for people to notice just exactly what this debate is really all about.

[Athena]

I don't think the world will ever be free from religion. As long as there are questions with no definitive answers, there will be someone spouting "the truth". Maybe we could convince the fundies to pack up on the USS Starship Mayflower and establish the Newt Gingrich moon colony.

[PokaDot]

I don't think the world will ever be free from religion. As long as there are questions with no definitive answers, there will be someone spouting "the truth". Maybe we could convince the fundies to pack up on the USS Starship Mayflower and establish the Newt Gingrich moon colony.

I really don't think fundies should be allowed to claim the moon. I don't want to be able to see them every night.....can't we give them something a little more...harsher? I hear Mercury is lovely this time of year.

[debrand]

The establishment clause reads

Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of

There is no Freedom from religion in the constitution.

Slight jumping off point but if a city hall wanted to put a nintivity scene up during Chrismas, they have the right to it because they are not congress and they are not making a law.

Could you explain what you mean? Your post confused me a little and I don't want to read into what you wrote.

Although Christianity is a religion, religion does not always mean Christianity. If a nativity scene is displayed in a public space, that is promoting Christianity. I think that some towns have gotten around this by allowing any religion to put up a display along with nativity scenes.

Even if they are not Congress, city halls have to abide by laws.

[Athena]

I really don't think fundies should be allowed to claim the moon. I don't want to be able to see them every night.....can't we give them something a little more...harsher? I hear Mercury is lovely this time of year.

Hmm, didn't think of that! Yes, Mercury could work or maybe we could sell them on Saturn with it's holy halo? ;)

[anniebgood]

The establishment clause reads

Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of

There is no Freedom from religion in the constitution.

Slight jumping off point but if a city hall wanted to put a nintivity scene up during Chrismas, they have the right to it because they are not congress and they are not making a law.

Nativity scenes are religious. Wiki says this about court challenges:

In federal court pleadings in the United States, for example, the New York City, school system defended its ban on nativity scenes by claiming the historicity of the birth of Jesus was not actual fact. The judge in the case upheld the ban, noting that the ban on nativity scenes is not discriminatory while permitting Jewish menorahs and Islamic star and crescent displays because the latter two have secular components while nativity scenes are supposed to be purely religious.

In 1985, the United States Supreme Court ruled in ACLU v. Scarsdale, New York that nativity scenes on public lands violate separation of church and state statutes unless they comply with "The Reindeer Rule"—a regulation calling for equal opportunity for non-religious symbols, such as reindeer.[49] This principle was further clarified in 1989, when the Supreme Court in County of Allegheny v. ACLU ruled that a crèche placed on the grand staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse in Pittsburgh, PA violated the Establishment Clause, because the "principal or primary effect" of the display was to advance religion.

[Guest Anonymous]

Hmm, didn't think of that! Yes, Mercury could work or maybe we could sell them on Saturn with it's holy halo? ;)

Better yet, send them all to Pluto. Especially now that it's been demoted as a planet.

[PokaDot]

Hmm, didn't think of that! Yes, Mercury could work or maybe we could sell them on Saturn with it's holy halo? ;)

I got it! Venus: The only planet named after a women. :)

Or Uranus: The planet so screwed up it spins sideways.

[duchess0592]

I will explain later but I'm out and about and on my iPhone which makes it hard to post but I did not you to think that I am not replying

Watch for later post :)

[Swamptribe]

This is a very ugly thing. Think of how many others can use the excuse 'but it's my religion' to violate the law and the rights of others. The Catholic Church is bullying it's employees, not all of whom are Catholic, with their religious beliefs.

[AudreyE]

The establishment clause reads

Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of

There is no Freedom from religion in the constitution.

Slight jumping off point but if a city hall wanted to put a nintivity scene up during Chrismas, they have the right to it because they are not congress and they are not making a law.

Fortunately, we can and we do interpret the intent of the law.

[AudreyE]

Of course, it wouldn't matter, if some Christians were not actively and aggressively trying to alienate people who do not share their faith. If that did not happen, then I betcha no one would care about nativity scenes.

[emmiedahl]

Doesn't Obama have a degree in Constitutional law? I doubt he is ignorant of the Constitution and its implications.

Murder and rape are not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, so we should all be happy there are people to interpret it wisely.

[Austin]

He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

This is a very ugly thing. Think of how many others can use the excuse 'but it's my religion' to violate the law and the rights of others. The Catholic Church is bullying it's employees, not all of whom are Catholic, with their religious beliefs.

Exactly. The question is just where do you draw the line - and I think we need to draw the line at the point where money or a work benefit (provided by others) is changing hands.

The church hospital doesn't need to PROVIDE contraception, directly, if it doesn't want to. They can outsource it, as per this law. In fact, this law even removes any possible lingering guilt from the choice of outsource company, since all of the outsource companies are the same in this regard. As I understand it, the Catholic church can't go into the insurance business without violating its scruples, then, but they haven't shown any desire to do so.

But the argument that "I'm giving someone a benefit that they can then use to sin" should count as violation of conscience is dangerous. Because from there it's a VERY slippery slope to saying "I paid your wages, so if you use that money to sin, you're forcing me to violate my religion." Completely apart from the church, I'm already seeing arguments locally to me (happily not getting anywhere, for now) that because I work for the state, and therefore am paid via taxpayer funds, the "taxpayers" (read: loud right-wingers) should have some say in how I spend my own money. But - it's MY MONEY.

There needs to be a clear line where ownership is transferred. Once something is converted to money, or a generic benefit, it belongs to the RECIPIENT, and there's no "guilt" (or CONTROL!) that should transfer.

If the Catholic church doesn't want its employees sinning, the Catholic church needs to persuade them not to. But they have full free will, as we all do, to sin (if that's how the church sees it) with their own salaries OR with their generic benefits.

[AudreyE]

Doesn't Obama have a degree in Constitutional law? I doubt he is ignorant of the Constitution and its implications.

Murder and rape are not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, so we should all be happy there are people to interpret it wisely.

LOL! Good point.

I love the idea that we should just ignore 200 years of experience, pretend that men who lived 200 years ago could anticipate our lives in the 21st century, and assume that we could even know exactly what their words meant, regardless.

Why just 200 years? Why not just toss out that last 1,000? Heck, some of our democratic traditions were handed down from ancient Greece, so, perhaps, we should ask ourselves what they would want us to do. They glorified sex with boys, but whatevs.

[AudreyE]

Doesn't Obama have a degree in Constitutional law? I doubt he is ignorant of the Constitution and its implications.

Murder and rape are not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, so we should all be happy there are people to interpret it wisely.

Degrees make you a liberal elitist. We just want to tell you what we *think* we know about the Constitution.