When Pliny the Younger was a provincial governor in the Roman Empire, he wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan asking whether he should execute Christians who refused to burn incense in worship of the emperor. Pliny, in keeping with the customs of the empire, did not care about forcing Christians to believe that the emperor was a god. But in public they had to behave as if they did. Thus, the Christians were in the dock not so much because of their faith in a risen Christ as over their willful refusal to declare themselves part of the reigning social order.
Advertisement
I thought of Pliny when I read that the Obama administration, in creating specific rules to implement Obamacare, will require all employers (with a very narrow exemption discussed below) to offer their employees health insurance that provides FDA-approved contraception, female sterilization, and other “reproductive” services free of charge — even if the employer is a religious organization and doing so violates its doctrine. I also recalled the times that President Obama and other members of his administration have supported “freedom of worship.” However, as in Pliny’s time, “freedom of worship” is not the same thing as “freedom of religion.” The former means that one may believe whatever one wants and worship privately without interference, whereas the latter allows one freedom to live in the world at large consistent with one’s faith tenets, even if they are not endorsed by the state.
Because the administration is knowingly forcing (primarily Catholic) religious organizations to pay for medical services to which they are theologically opposed, the new rules represent a frontal assault on freedom of religion at an institutional level. This is no small matter. To date, public controversies over “conscience” in health care have mostly involved individuals — e.g., doctors, nurses, pharmacists — whose personal morality or religious convictions conflicted with the provision of certain medical procedures or substances. For example, pharmacies in Washington State and Illinois have litigated over the right of owners to refuse to dispense contraception on religious grounds. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the pharmacies and in favor of a state regulation (since withdrawn for reconsideration) requiring them to dispense legally prescribed medications. An Illinois state court took the opposite view in a similar case.
But the free-birth-control rule goes much further than creating a potential conflict between the general law and individual religious beliefs. Rather, the rule targets the right of religious organizations to conduct their public activities consistently with their religious dogma and moral values — except within the narrow confines of an actual church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or monastery.
I think the author did a superb job of drawing a philosophical distinction between "freedom of religion" and "freedom of worship", the latter of which is almost subsumed under freedom of thought. In fact, it should surprise nobody that the Left would acquiese to the latter "freedom", because it really is no freedom at all in the sense of granting a protected sphere of activity. The government can't control your thoughts, so saying you are free to believe whatever you want doesn't restrain the government in any meaningful way.
True, there are places where blasphemy is punished - but that's really a free speech issue. My point is, following the author's line, if we take "freedom of religion" and denature it to "freedom of worship", and then subtract out the freedoms protected already by freedom of speech, there is nothing left!
I don't recall which opinion it was, but in an opinion I read by J. Antonin Scalia, he invoked the emptying of a juridical concept/category of any meaning by consequence of ruling for a party as evidence for the opposing position.
"The birth-control rule is the latest and most egregious example of government forcing religious organizations to conform their operations to reigning secular moral values."
It's also a harbinger of things to come in Obamacare that have nothing to do with religion. If the government can force institutions and insurance companies to provide service 'X' "free of charge", it will bring down those institutions for economic reasons alone. Today it's contraception. Tomorrow it may be sex-change operations. And later it may be something as non-controversial as antibiotics for colds.
That this administration starts with the controversial, and specifically religiously controversial, merely points out their first priority. Weaken the spritual fabric of a people, and accomplishing the more mundane aspects of their agenda will be a piece of cake.
It's too bad the mainstream media latches on to a term like "free birth control". It would only be "free" if the provider charged nothing and collected nothing. It's not "free" if someone else (taxpayers or other insurance members or whoever) is paying for it. It's the same with "free" mammograms and any other sort of "free" health care or "free" anything else.
Obama, Sibelius, etc. are not mandating "free birth control" - they are mandating that it be available and that someone else pay for it.
Specifically, they are requiring that the employer pay for it through the employer portion of the health care premiums. The very people who object to it.
I'm not an employer, and I object to it. Every dollar my employer spends on unnecessary health care features is a dollar I don't get. And, like most employees, I have to pay a portion of my own insurance and that amount keeps going up while the portion the company covers keeps going down. This is because of really stupid regulations coming from our government. I'm much less well off now than I was before all this stuff started.
As some have mentioned, the big issue is how can government mandate "free" coverage for anything? This issue should not exist. I am assuming no copays, no deductable? No individial responsibility at all. That is not insurance. I don't know if insurace companies cover contraceptives not, but there is no reason that they should be forced to. The government is trying to force private instututions to do their bidding. There may be a case for publicly funded clinics with subsidized contraception, but that should be controlled by public policy and not forced on private insurance. Of course there is large contigent that thinks tha governement should control everything and nothing should be truely private..
The illogic of this statement is breathtaking. You compare providing for the national defense, which is one of the few core constitutionally designated functions of the Federal government, to that same government requiring private institutions to provide a specific product at a specific price. I think you need to go back and read the Constitution.
I know history buffs and I can guarantee that if this comment is indicative of your thought process, you are decidedly not a history buff.
The answer to this is quite simple, really, and we have guidance from 2,000 years ago to call upon:
We will render unto Caesar and we will also render unto God.
We should not comply with the order. We should pay the fines and submit to whatever penalties the state might choose to impose for non-compliance. The penalties that are mentioned are financial - is our money more important than our faith? I suppose it is likely jail time and personal ruin are to follow; I haven't read the law. But suffering for our beliefs as Christians is nothing new and something we should all be prepared for.
That is the lot for a Christian and the example we should follow.
I don't believe we should wait for the moment. Announcing this intention ahead of time with the help of sympathetic media outlets such as NRO could generate a most powerful message. I don't believe Americans are so far gone that they are incapable of seeing the parallels between actions such as these and what went on 2,000 years ago.
I agree with this response. Churches should just not comply and then pay the fines. As Steven points out, churches should announce this intention ahead of time to make clear that they are doing this as a form of protest and a principled stand against tyranny.
I agree with not paying the fine. However, rather than taking the political stance you advocate, I thing the Biblical thing to do is just state "this is policy violates the tenants of the Catholic Church and we cannot comply with it".
Think about Jesus's demeanor when he was being tried by Pontius Pilate.
Yes, I agree with you. But I say do it ahead of time; because I still love my country and I would like to see this stance have some impact upon who leads it. Or maybe make further moments just like it unnecessary a couple years from now.
I agree, in part. Those of us who object to these new regulations should REFUSE to provide insurance for the offending services and REFUSE to pay the fines. Let Sebelius send her goons to come arrest the Presidents of Belmont Abbey College, the University of Notre Dame, Brigham Young University, Boston College, and so on.
What we have to do is FORCE their hands, and humiliate them by exposing their abuse of power.
BK, I completely agree you about the "free" thing. Nothing is free.
This is a repost from a similar article. I would be very interested to hear others take on this as I realize it is not in line with many views here.
I think there is a serious danger to letting specific religious groups dictate health care practices to employees of a different faith or to atheists.
For example, I would not want someone who worked for a books store owned by Jehovah's witnesses *with mostly non JW employees), assuming they had health benefits through their job, to not have blood transfusions be a covered benefit because of JW beliefs that it would cause eternal damnation. Or, if someone worked in a secular capacity for the Church of Scientology I would not want them to be denied psychiatric benefits, because the CoS considers psychiatry an abomination.
If a woman is pregnant by rape and her life is medcically threatened by the fetus and the employer does not think an abortion is morally acceptable then I would not want her to be denied that health benefit. Just to be clear, I am not attributing this specific policy to the Catholic Church, but many Christian churches hold these views.
I don't think these various churces/employers should be able to reject benefits for their employees with a different faith because they don't like them. It would lead to a bizarro patchwork. In order to reject them, say mental health benefits, blood transfusions, abortions, etc. there would have to be a medical (not religious, arguement made).
Health decisions should be left to doctor and patient and not dictated by government, employer, or church, in my opinion. For me, the choice lies with the individual and not with preventing choices.
Do we have a "bizarro patchwork" now? Because it seems to me the status quo works just fine.
I believe in blood transfusion so I will look for an employer whose health care benefits are likely to cover that.
I believe in psychiatry so I will look for an employer whose health care benefits are likely to cover that.
See how that works?
I imagine before accepting employment in a Catholic setting, one is made aware of the quirks of the benefits package.
From a patient perspective: I gave birth some years ago as a Protestant in a Catholic hospital. When I filled out my pre-admission paperwork I was counselled in what postpartum birth control methods they would/would not support; for example they would not perform a tubal ligation during a C-section. They provided referrals--because it was a sensible thing to do, not because the government in its "wisdom" required them to do so--if I wanted to take my business elsewhere. It really wasn't such a terrible burden to bear, honestly, and any inconvenience on a patient's part is quite a small price to pay for upholding the Bill of Rights.
"Health decisions should be left to doctor and patient and not dictated by government, employer, or church, in my opinion."
If you don't want the decisions (or choices) dictated by your government or your employer or your church, then don't ask them to pay for it. You can get a blood transfusion if you work at the JW bookstore - it's just that your employer won't pay for it. You want to spend an hour a week, lying on Dr Frued's couch? Go right ahead - but don't expect your Scientologist employer to cover the cost. You want to minimize the risk of pregnancy in your sex-life? Go ahead and get your freak on - but don't expect your employer (or any other organization to which you belong that doesn't agree with you) to subsidize your nocturnal activities. (BTW, until recently, I've never had an employer health care package include coverage for my preventative measures. I had to buy those out of pocket at the drug store.)
This is all beside the fact that the primary reason for increasing medical costs today is government interference in the system with such things as mandated coverage. So, the government "fixes" that by ... mandationg more coverage. Way to go, Gomer.
Simple Problem, Simple Answer.
I am sure Jehovah Witnesses don't want to pay for blood Transfusions either, so the answer is simple any organization that has an moral objection to a required bit of care, just provides CASH either in the form of a payment for an insurance rider provided by a third party or just payment to an individual for FULL retail cost, easy isn't it?
Follow
