I’m not the first to comment on the Obama administration’s breathtaking assault on religious liberty, I won’t be the last, and I’m certainly not the most eloquent. I am, however, a lawyer prepared to do something about it. At issue are two competing visions of religion in American public life. For the Obama administration — beginning with its stance that federal employment laws trumped even a religious organization’s selection of its own ministers and now extending to dictating that religious employers must violate their deepest beliefs as a precondition for maintaining their core religious mission — has decided that religion is nothing special, really. It’s nothing more than perhaps just one competing business philosophy — some businesses read Good to Great, others read the Bible, and some read both. In any case, all are subject to the benevolent embrace of the all-ecompassing state.
The opposing view looks back to the Mayflower and to a past immeasurably enriched by the most robust, tolerant, and vibrant religious expression in the developed world and realizes the essential importance of our nation’s “first liberty” — religious freedom. We are who we are in large part because of our respective denominations and faiths. Indeed, “the better angels of our nature” (to borrow from Lincoln) have again and again sprung from our faith communities — from the indispensable role churches played in the Revolution, to the abolitionist movement, to our struggle against fascism, to the fight for civil rights, and to the present, world-leading philanthropy of American citizens.
If our courts — and our citizens at the ballot box — choose the Obama administration’s view, then the Europeanization of America may well become irresistible. As the Obama administration assaults our nation’s great Catholic institutions, it’s time for the church universal — the holy catholic church — to unite. Do we not all value our liberties? Do we believe that the state can love its citizens better than Christ operating through His followers? And for our nation’s Protestants, are we so wedded to our distinctions from our Catholic brothers and sisters that we’ll fail to rally to their aid much less closely examine our own apparent willingness to quietly cover and fund abortifacients?
It is times like this when the words of our creeds matter. We are, in fact, part of the “holy catholic church.” We are one Body. The Obama administration should and must face a completely and firmly united American Christian community. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, we’re all Catholics now.
Don't you know that you are completely free to believe whatever you want in your head. You can practice whatever you want behind closed doors, as long as it isn't against the law. You can say whatever you want, as long as the government approves, in your sermons. As long as the government approves, you can hire whoever you want! You can reward their hard work with as many benefits as you want, as long as the government approves of them! What's the problem? We have freedom here!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said Mr. French. I'm glad to hear that you and others will take action against this outrageous decision. It might be wishful thinking but I'm hoping such actions by the Obama administration will cause religious people of all stripes to rally against him. That said, do you have any specifics regarding your exhortation for Protestants' to rally with the Catholics? I know I am certainly with them in spirit, even signed a petition, I'll definitely vote against Obama in the general election, but what else is a person to do?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. That may be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
If the Catholic church's position was the same now as it was in Spain in 1492, would it be wrong for the government to stop torture of Jews and Muslims?
Since Orthodox Jews will not work on the Sabbath, should not we have the country shut down on Saturdays?
If I formed a religion that mandated human sacrifice, should the government turn a blind eye?
Maybe so. But that is not a country I would want to live in. The bottom line is that if an institution employs people, they must follow certain norms. Society will make some exceptions for institutions that only serve one's faith, but there needs to be a line.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Allajn,
It is not the "norm" and never will be, that the Federal government has the authority to decide that an organization must act against its religious beliefs.
It is not the "norm" that the Federal government dictates that we purchase health insurance.
It is not the "norm" that the Federal government dictates what health coverages we as employers must offer.
The Federal government, through the Obama Administration, once again has massively overstepped its Constitutional authority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour comments are asinine. There's probably no hope in convincing you of the what actually happened during the Inquisition so I'll not waste my time. Your example of the Orthodox Jews makes my point clear however. The government would never mandate that Jewish businesses be open on Sabbath, or that a Jewish or Muslim store sell pork products because people of other faiths patronize their business. I also find it ironic that you use the human sacrifice example, because the abortions/abortifacient drugs that the Church is being mandated to pay for, is a human sacrifice in their eyes. If you want to use contraception/abortion that's on your conscience. The government can't mandate that the Church pay for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow has America survived so long before the Obama administration showed up? Americans & America survived & prospered long before Obama declared women have rights to birth control & that other citizens should be the ones to pay for that right. It's just wrong for him to dictate to Americans that they must be forced to pay for something as personable as birth control.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour comment is a perfect example of the problem. Secularists who, far from restricting religion, would put liberal fascism in its place. Each of us must have the freedom to find their own path -- I'm an agnostic, bug am certainly a catholic now!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't the real problem here not the contraception mandate, but instead the federal overreach of regulating insurance within the states? How is it any business of the federal government what health insurance a Catholic hospital in Chicago or New York is offering its employees? We're taking a 10th Amendment issue and trying to turn it into a religious liberty issue.
You'll excuse me if I'm not sympathetic to the cries of some social conservatives now when, five years ago, some of these same voices were applauding the Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich. If you want to reduce the footprint of the imperial federal government, then you should believe that the majority got it wrong in Gonzales; most social conservatives don't.
If the 10th Amendment actually meant anything anymore, this never would have happened. Unfortunately, we have too many self-described conservatives who aren't that opposed to a strong, imposing federal government when its advancing a more friendly agenda, like it did in Gonzales.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We're taking a 10th Amendment issue and trying to turn it into a religious liberty issue."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause it's both, Scott. I say fight it on both fronts. However, with the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that's out there, 10th Amendment claims have less force than 1st Amendment ones.
I'd suggest a difference between the Court's assertion of federal supremacy under the Commerce Clause and creating a new and unprecedented mandate for insurance coverage that violates religious principle.
It's certainly a reasonable argument to suggest that the Commerce Clause be limited to interstate commerce, and that the government was overreaching in Gonzales (although it's also apparent to this non-lawyer that such overreaching has significant precedent in Constitutional case law, for better or worse) but onet cannot simply pretend that the First Amendment doesn't apply here. Congress and the White House are attempting to impose a commercial burden on religious groups that includes forcing them to violate their religious principles. There is no precedent for such an action and there is a clear First Amendment problem with insisting that groups pay for services that violate their religious conscience.
Thus, the answer to Scott's initial question is, "No, they are both problems." Ignoring the 1st Amendment implications in order to better make your complains about social conservatives attitudes regarding the 10th Amendment is short sighted, at best.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have no problem with letting a religious group treat its followers or anyone who voluntarily works for them as arbitrarily as their faith requires.
I'm for lifting a commercial burden from all religious organizations in the US: no more tax exemptions based on religion, be they federal, state or local exemptions. All such exemptions are gifts from the state; they are NOT constitutionally compelled.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAllowing a person or organization to keep its money is NOT a "gift from the state" -- as you so absurdly put it -- any more than a burglar is giving you something when he leaves your stereo behind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFine, as long as the tax-exempt status of non-religious groups such as unions, PP, the NAACP, etc., is also revoked.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Unfortunately, we have too many self-described conservatives who aren't that opposed to a strong, imposing federal government when its advancing a more friendly agenda."
It's not so much the jackboot that we mind, is whose foot is wearing it and whose neck is feeling it that mostly concerns us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this is what he is willing to do in an election year, imagine what four more years would be like.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are so right, DonnaDiorio. Very scary, indeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We’re All Catholics Now"
And here I thought that smoke pouring out of my Trojan box was some sort of newfangled expiration device.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat an idiot!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Breathtaking assault"? Such hyperbole. There is nowhere close to 100% compliance by US catholics to the church hierarchy's view on contraception, yet they remain faithful catholics. The problem here isn't religious liberty, it's the catholic church's control and power that's at issue. I challenge anyone to provide any credible evidence that jesus christ condemned contraception.
Mr. French also trots out the dog-whistle-du-jour of Mr. Obama's devious plan to turn us into Europe. Even if it were true, I can think of worse fates for this country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I can think of worse fates for this country"
That's the problem. My view is "how great can this country be?", and you think, ah, it could be worse. What a low view of our country and our future. No vision.
If we turn into Europe, then America ceases to exist in my mind...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse