Before we turn the page on the HHS contraception mandate and focus on the current inadequate compromise, or on just how far the Obama administration will backtrack — or be forced back — let’s not forget what it nearly got away with.
Twice in recent months, the administration has attempted to apply wide-reaching government regulation to religious organizations. And twice it has faced repudiation — first from a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling and now from outraged citizens in the court of public opinion.
But it is the combined effect and underlying philosophy of these proposals that has so many religious believers concerned. The perception is growing that there is hostility within the Obama administration to the role of religious institutions in American life.
Advertisement
Arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC late last year, the administration sought unprecedented limits on the autonomy of churches and religious institutions in employment matters.
The administration argued that the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment is not relevant to any “ministerial exception” in employment law claimed by religious institutions. To the extent that the administration was willing to recognize any exception, it wanted such exceptions “limited to those employees who perform exclusively religious functions.”
So radical was the administration’s reasoning that the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed, saying: “We are unsure whether any such employees exist,” because even the highest-ranking churchmen have “a mix of duties,” not all of which are religious.
Dismissing the administration’s arguments, the Court ruled 9–0 that “there is a ministerial exception grounded in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment” with President Obama’s nominee to the Court, Justice Kagan, co-authoring a concurring opinion, which some legal scholars see as even more wide-reaching than the Court’s majority opinion.
While the Hosanna-Tabor case was pending, the administration opened a second front in the religious-liberty debate last summer. Its contraception mandate allowed only the narrowest exemption for religious institutions — one apparently crafted earlier by the ACLU. Religious organizations could claim this exemption only if they meet a strict four-part test:
(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization. (2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. (3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. (4) The organization is a nonprofit organization . . .
Actually finding an organization that can meet this test has proved elusive.
As Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Houston put it: “Jesus himself, or the Good Samaritan of his famous parable, would not qualify as ‘religious enough’ for the exemption, since they insisted on helping people who did not share their view of God.”
In a country where 75 percent of the population professes to be Christian, the administration proposed an exemption that neither Christ himself nor his followers could legitimately meet, since Christians are called to reach beyond their own denominations in teaching “all nations,” considering everyone their “neighbor,” and doing “good to those who hate” them. No Christian denomination could be expected to comply with the third requirement of the exemption without forsaking those they were called to serve. And many non-Christians also object to such a self-centered view of their service to society.
The article didn't address the administration's favoritism toward the "peaceful religion" Islam. 1st there was the "race" card, then the " rich" card and now the "religious" card. Obama knows how to play the three "R" to win. Ignorance and distortion of the "facts" are his allies. The former is more preferable than swallowing the big lie. The unemployment figures only improved because the rules were changed to make them better. But the "ruler" is beholden to the "king" makers.. He does the bidding of the Unions and the Amazonians. Squeak by on the second term to serve his masters. Noted that Bill Beckel told O'Reilly that the Trillion Dollar debt didn't mean anything. Really? The Chinese Bill Collectors probably heard that comment and became nervous . Time to collect in Land and Property. Destroy the future so you can wield power for eight years. The Late Great Planet that once had an America. Oh by the way Jesus admonished us to be cheerful donors ie that is a voluntary act. He never said we had to be happy tax payers. He took his coin out of the mouth of the fish. Roman taxes only helped the occupiers. The Bible advocated a 10 percent flat tax. It was called tithing. When Jesus fed the people 5,000 fish he didn't sent them a tax bill later on. In fact the money lenders got their tables turned over in the temple. Matthew was a former tax collector and Jesus made him give the money back. Obama tells us what Jesus approves of taxes but never mentioned that Jesus made Zachaceus given tax refunds back to the people. . He was taught by his pastor that Jesus wanted to "God D--m America". Did he ever read the Bible? Of course not. Liberals forbid it. Whats next? Burining the Bible because forced heath care and approval of abortionisn't in the Book.. Failure to meniton that means the bible is a "hate" document denying the same"right" as the Soviet Constitution of 1936. .
" Where freedom is that is my country"
Thomas Jefferson
Go the Washington State and they are coming very close to that. There is a law now that force churches to provide space for homosexual marriages. Currently, sanctuaries are exempted, but the language is somewhat ambiguous, which opens the door for judges to make mischief.
Marxism has a hostility towards all institutions that can compete with the State (at least until it "withers away") for the prolitariat's allegience. This includes religion, the family, etc. so the recent attacks on religion should come as no surprise.
Why is any of this a surprise? BHO is attempting to bring us as far as he can towards being a Marxist state in his term(s) as president (please Lord may there be only one such...). Didn't Lenin, Mao and Ceaucescu close the Churches?
The ultimate goal is not to pay for abortion on demand but to mandate abortion. This is the crowd that thinks there are too many people on this planet. They absolutely plan to move to a China-like policy to reduce the population.
This mandate wasn't aimed at All religious institutions. The main ones hit are those with a Judeo-Christian foundation (close to 80% of the population). I don't know much about how it effects religions like Hindu, Budhist or Shinto but there is one religion that appears to meet the four criteria to get around the mandate. That religion is Islam.
Progressives appear to be surprised by public reaction to the Federal Government's overreach of power over religious institutions and people of faith. They fail to understand that most people actually have deeply held beliefs and principles. They seem to have taken to heart such Saul Alinsky's principles as "the third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means..." and "The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments." When President Obama offered his compromise to appease Catholics, I'm sure he assumed they would accept it and not make an unseemly fuss over the underlying principles.
Oddly enough, what surprises me (though I'm not a 'progressive' in the sense you mean) is that the percentage of American Catholics who support the administration on this position is higher than the percentage of Americans in general who support it, and that both are in the majority (58% vs 53%).
I think that it's worth remembering that what we enjoy is the freedom to worship who, what, and how we choose, not the freedom to conduct all business under the aegis of religion and thus be freed of its associated regulations. It's obvious to me that the Catholics, for example, should be free to run their churches as they wish; if they entertain quaint notions about the unsuitability of women to administer sacraments, that's their business, and a governmental intervention to force the ordination of women would be out of line. But when the church opens a hospital, or school, or skijet rental shop, it is running a business, not conducting worship, and should abide by the rules of said business. One is tempted to persuade the Christian Scientists to open a hospital or two to drive the point home.
On an tangential note, it's interesting to watch an individual inject a talking point into his speeches (in this case, Newt Gingrich on Saul Alinsky) and watch the trickle-down effect as the talking point is picked up and parroted.
----when the church opens a hospital, or school, or skijet rental shop, it is running a business, not conducting worship
Demonstrating in black and white the liberal's incomprehension of Christian mission. When Christians heal the sick in NONPROFIT hospitals we are following a religious commandment. It is part of working life to glorify the Creator. When religious NONPROFIT schools educate all (especially the minorities that liberal big cities seem to want to throw into refuse bins) we are following our great Teacher's example.
What a disaster it would be if parochial schools across the country closed and left it up to the corrupt inner city schools (no profit, but lots of payola) to try to educate and additional thirty percent of children.
And for our vast contribution to the country in these various institutions all we are asking is to be left alone to observe tenets of our faith.
Sorry, Gmurphy, but however noble your motivations, the fact that it is a church running a business rather than some other corporate entity does not and should not exempt it from all of the rules and regulations attendant such a business. My son's in a parochial school, and I've coached there, so I'm all for parochial schools - but guess what - it's a school, not a church. There are teachers at the school who are not Catholic, and there's no reason that their health care benefits should be determined by the faith of their employer. It's a fine line similar to that walked by employees of other corporations: if you accept employment at a Catholic institution, it's expected that you support, not undermine, the mission of the institution, but that doesn't extend to having the Church make one's medical choices for one. (Particularly when it's a choice that the majority of Catholics don't even abide by or respect.)
As for my comments reflecting a "liberal's" perspective, maybe I'll find a liberal and ask him if that's the case. As for me, I find people who look at these policy issues on a linear 'liberal-conservative' spectrum to be a bit simpleminded, and they share the fundamentalist's yearning for simplicity and clear choices.
And, no, you're not simply being asked to be left alone to follow the tenets of your faith. Nothing in this initiative involved asking a Catholic to use birth control (though most do, at some point in their lives); it involved not imposing religious restrictions on non-Catholic employees of businesses run by the Catholic Church. That's a different kettle of fish.
That the Catholic Church can't open hospitals or churches and run them according to their beliefs is absurd. An official church shouldn't even need to be involved. Whether or not it is for profit or nonprofit shouldn't be a factor here either.
As a private businessman, the Freedom of Religion should protect my right to open any legitimate business and run it according to my beliefs, including refusing to provide services that come in conflict with those beliefs to customers or employees.
As a private businessman, if I want to hire only employees that pray regularly to Allah, that should be my right. (By strict interpretations of the law regarding hallal, no infidel can be involved in the production or distribution of that food. I on the other hand can avoid eating at such places.)
As a private businessman, if I don't want to provide insurance that pays for my staff to kill their unborn children. that seems a very reasonable use of my freedom. While I have no problem with other forms of birth control, private Catholics should not be required to pay for it for their employees, let alone official Catholic organizations.
"As a private businessman, the Freedom of Religion should protect my right to open any legitimate business and run it according to my beliefs, including refusing to provide services that come in conflict with those beliefs to customers or employees."
I had a platoon sergeant who saw that put into action when he traveled to a town in West Virginia to check on a soldier who'd been hospitalized in a car accident there. The woman at the diner didn't believe in serving blacks. Obviously, there are and should be limits to the extent to which your beliefs determine what services you will and won't provide.
In the example you gave, the analagous situation would not entail you being free to hire only Muslims to prepare halal food; it would entail you choosing to hire a Christian and offering medical benefits as part of her compensation, but insisting that her gynecologist be a woman because, strictly speaking, a male gynecologist is haram.
Mr. Anderson, start allowing local Knights councils to reprimand or eliminate membership for Knights like Mr. Stupack who claim to be Catholic. It is politicians like him that voted for Obama care that allowed this whole problem with the HHS ruling. These politicians are leading other under catechised Catholics a stray. Unless we stop sitting on our hands and start doing some thing to address this problem, nothing is going to change. You are not being charitable by allowing these politicians to continue in their sinful ways and not pointing it out to them.
The foundational support of the U.S. constitution is in the assurance that the government will never be afforded the ability to mandate litmus tests in exchange for access to public commerce. With SCOTUS now harboring jurists who have expressed disdain for our constitution how long before we the people rise up against this decadent elite class of our own making?
"The perception is growing that there is hostility within the Obama administration to the role of religious institutions in American life."
Amen, (or Doh!), what took so long? I think Obama is a phoney Christian, savvy enough to know he must PRETEND to be a Christian. We will know them by their fruits.
I pray that soon there will be a belated realization growing that there is hostility with MOST LIBERALS towards the role of religious institutions in American life.
Please pardon my uppercase "shouting," but it accentuates the correct words to make the correct point.
Let's quit believing the bad guys that conservatives are overreaching, as if liberal values are the only "fair and balanced" viewpoint. Love your enemy. Trust and verify. It is verified that liberals are at war with conservative values, yet only conservatives believe the conservative side must give up our ground.
The HHS mandate is unquestionably an assault on religious freedom and a violation of the first amendment. Unfortunately it is much worse than that. It is an assault on the very notion of freedom.
