When even E.J. Dionne can’t quite bring himself to defend the Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty, you know the president must have a real problem. In
his column today, Dionne tries his best to avoid making his point too clear. He spends most of his time laying out all the nice things Obama has said to liberal Catholics and only then turns to how Obama has now utterly betrayed them. But the point is straightforward: The president is willing to pay lip service to religious liberty, but when it comes time for action he wants to enforce the agenda of the radical left and to push civil society out of the government’s way. Dionne will presumably forgive the president as soon as he mentions income inequality again, but other religious voters who took a chance on him might not.
And they’re right to be angry and worried. The particulars of what the Obamacare insurance mandate rule does, and the unwillingness of the administration to exempt religious employers, are just stunning. Religious institutions are basically going to be fined for holding views regarding contraception, sterilization, and abortion that are different from the Obama administration’s views. For instance, Notre Dame University, which employs more than 5,000 people, is going to be given the choice of either expressly violating its religious convictions or paying a $10 million fine to the federal government. It’s bad enough that any employer with a moral objection has to spend his money this way, but it is especially egregious to compel religious institutions to do so.
As many have noted around here, the fact of the administration’s willingness to do this sheds light on its hostility to (or at the very least its contempt for) religious liberty. But it’s not quite that simple. This incident (and especially the nature of the exemption that the administration was willing to grant, which is essentially an exemption for actual houses of worship but not for other religiously-affiliated institutions) also sheds light on a very deeply rooted problem in our tradition of religious liberty itself—a problem that should cause those of us inclined to seek recourse in “conscience protection” and religious exemptions to pause and think.
The English common law tradition of religious toleration, which we inherited, has always had a problem with religious institutions that are not houses of worship—i.e. that are geared to ends other than the practice of religion itself. To (vastly) oversimplify for a moment, that tradition began (in the 16th century, and in some respects even earlier) with the aim of protecting Protestant dissenters and Jews but (very intentionally) not protecting Catholics. And the way it took shape over the centuries in an effort to sustain that distinction was by drawing a line between individual religious practice (in which the government could not interfere) and an institutional religious presence (which was given far less protection). Because Catholicism is a uniquely institutional religion—with large numbers of massive institutions for providing social services, educating children and adults, and the like, all of which are more or less parts of a single hierarchy—this meant Catholics were simply not granted the same protection as others. Obviously the intent to treat Catholics differently has for the most part fallen away since then, but the evolved legal tradition is very much with us, and it is not a coincidence that it always seems to be the Catholic Church that gets caught up in these situations when the government overreaches.
The inclination to resort to an argument for “conscience protection” when this happens is quite natural and understandable—the language of freedom of conscience is the essential vocabulary of our legal tradition of religious liberty. But it is problematic in instances like this precisely because that tradition itself is problematic in instances like this. Does an institution have a conscience? Does it make sense to speak in highly individualistic terms like conscience when discussing threats to religious liberty in our civil society? Is it right to ask for individual exemptions—accepting as a narrow and revocable favor from the state a freedom that until now was understood as a broad restriction on the power of the state—when the question on the table is really the basic character of our society?
In this sense, what is at issue in the controversy over the administration’s rule is not just the question of religious liberty but the question of non-governmental institutions in a free society. Does civil society consist of a set of institutions that help the government achieve its purposes as it defines them when their doing so might be more efficient or convenient than the state’s doing so itself, or does civil society consist of an assortment of efforts by citizens to band together in pursuit of mutual aims and goods as they understand them? Is it an extension of the state or of the community? In this arena, as in a great many others, the administration is clearly determined to see civil society as merely an extension of the state, and to clear out civil society—clearing out the mediating layers between the individual and the state—when it seems to stand in the way of achieving the president’s agenda. The idea is to leave as few non-individual players as possible in the private sphere, and to turn those few that are left into agents of the government. This is the logic of a lot of the administration’s approach to the private economy, not just to civil society. It is key to the design of Obamacare (which aims to yield massive consolidation in the insurance sector, leaving just a handful of very large insurers that would function as public utilities), of significant portions of Dodd-Frank (which would privilege and protect a few very large banks that would function as public utilities while strangling all the others with red tape), and of much of the regulatory agenda of the left. And it is all the more so the character of the administration’s approach to charitable institutions. It is an attack on mediating institutions of all sorts, moved by the genuine belief that they are obstacles to a good society.
This approach is especially noxious and pernicious when it is directed at religiously affiliated institutions—both because they deserve special standing and because they do some of the hardest and most needful work of charity and care in our society. We should use every available means to protect those institutions from this mortal danger, and that certainly includes resorting to the language of conscience and exemption. But as we do so, we should not forget that we are dealing with an instance of a larger and deeper danger, and we should do what we can to combat that danger in its own terms. It is perhaps the gravest threat to freedom in American life today.
Notwithstanding the protestations of apostate Catholics like Mr. Dionne, the focus and intent of the Pro(re)gressive movement, both as an American political movement and movement of apostate dissidents within the Roman Catholic Church, has been to destroy and render ineffective private sources of real charity in deference to the promotion of the State. If the State has to compete with people of real principle and conviction, it loses, so like the left''s caricature of a business monoplist it will take any action, regardless of its legality ("we don't need no stinkin Constitution") to secure its domination.
The Roman Catholic Church has suffered at the hands of the apostate dissidents to the point were they have truncated the teaching of the Faith to a dangerous level in furtherence of their ungodly real agenda and are in opposition to the True Church and its teachings as one of the last organized and intergrated bulworks for moral clarity. Those alleged Catholic educators that adhere to the "Land-O-Lakes Heresy" or those alleged Catholic social and health care workers that surrendered to the altar of Obamacare (like the million dollar year alleged nun), have souls and blood on their hands.
External Link
External Link
Also, Barry loves abortion and homosexuality and will stop anyone who "disses" his position..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree on all counts.
A perfect example of apostational truncation of the Catholic Faith would be that creepy elitist sow Nancy Pelosi, who is liberal first and Catholic second. I cannot personally vouch for her personal attitudes toward the Faith, but given her incredible wealth and penchant for royal behavior while Speaker, she is the essence of a statist ruler. That, my fellow countrymen, is exactly what the Founders attempted to prevent. Unfortunately, the history of mankind reflects the tendency toward immorality. Our system has been steadily degraded, taking us on a glide path to the precipice upon which we currently find ourselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen. Preach it, Yuval.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd how does this socialism affect Muslim society?
I would bet my bottom dollar that exceptions are, and will continue to be, carved out for those who follow Islam; in much the same manner Muslim's have a separate set of screening rules at airports.
We must peacefully overthrow this communist. GO VOTE!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy wait to vote? A million angry Americans (TeaPartiers, perhaps) demonstrating in the National Mall and shutting down Washington DC for weeks at a time until Obama resigns would do it. Worked in Egypt a year ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would love to agree. Unfortunately, if we descend to the level of our opressors, we become them. We must FIRST follow our Constitution and its LEGAL provisions for abolishing or amending the current rulers of our nation. IF, and only if, that fails, can we claim the right to 'overthrow' the current president, his cronies, and those who make him dance on a string for them. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America BOTH provide recourse for removal of an abusive president, judge, or congressperson. We must attempt to adhere to the rules of the America we love, or, when the dust settles, it will not be American any more than it will be if the current path we are headed down reaches its goal. I fear our 'dear leader' will never willingly step down. Why should he? He did not PUBLICLY give the Proper Oath of Office. They say he was re-sworn immediately after he was 'inside' but do we know that for fact? He obviously has no problem lying, cheating or stealing, so what's a little oath breaking, if he did swear the Oath? But if we act like the 'occupy' folks, we're no better than a pointless mob, and will achieve nothing of value in the end. But I do think a protest might have some value, on congress and the supreme court, if not the president! We should NOT break the peace. The constitution gives the right to 'peaceably assemble'. If we break the peace, we will be as hypocritical as our leader. For the sake of our country, of our families and fellow citizens, and for the sake of our children, we must adhere to the Constitution until every remedy under law has been attempted. Then, we will see where we stand as a nation. I realize that is a less than appealing task, but if citizens who believe the Constitution is still 'relevant' don't follow its provisions, who will? In the Old Testament of the Bible, the nation of Israel (and Judah, at times) would be conquered, hit by plagues or famine, or other disasters. These were brought about by God to attempt to bring His people back to him, to the right way of living and believing. When they repented their sins (and recognizing them as sins is essential for repentance), the land was healed, conquerors were overthrown, plauges ceased. We must make our land right with God. As the Book of Elijah mentions, "There will be no rain in all of this land, except by My Word." That was God speaking through Elijah the prophet, and indeed, there was no rain until Elijah 'dueled' with and defeated the kiing's false god and his prophets. The rain soon followed. This is a good analogy for today's ills in America. We must insist that our leaders, our judges, or law makers adhere to the very core of what our Nation is meant to do and be. If they do not, we will continue down the current destructive path, with no hope for 'redemption'. If, however, we return to our guiding principles, and in fact remember that we are 'One Nation, Under God', then all things are possible, and our Land will be healed. Ok, that is obviously my religious preference highlighting my point. Even if you are of no religion at all, I think the parable and the truth of our times is obvious. A leader who foreswears the laws he is supposed to uphold has lost any claim to moral authority whatsoever. That's probably a simpler, shorter, and more to the point way of saying what I just wrote an essay about! Well, I take this very seriously, and believe that we are under attack, whether from evil or from the mere hubris of a man (and those who suppport and/or tell him what to do) with more power than he can handle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebased on the latest events, it is fair to conclude that only the Catholic Church is standing between a free america and a totalitarian america.
if freedom-loving americans are NOT willing to unite with each other to defend the obama administration's naked attempt to quell roman catholicism in our society, what will unite them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLiberals have no use for other people's freedoms, period. Religious or otherwise.
In this Obama is merely being true to his roots.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNote to RNC...I'll pledge $10,000 to the first group proclaiming in ads or full page print: "Obama and Dems repeal the First Amendment" Get some stones or give up, GOP!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe issue of Civil society and how it interacts with the state are very well addresses in all three of Pope Benedict's Encyclical as well as Centessimus Annus from John Paul II. I would highly recommend them to understand the separation of the aspects of society.
External Link
External Link
External Link
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think they wanted all along to make the religious institutions completely drop coverage. They want more people getting their health care funding directly from the government, not filtered through the employer. The employers simply give the government more money, and the government makes all the decisions. The other shoe to drop is that, when the fines are not enough to pay for the healthcare, the fine aka tax starts to go up and up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJehovah Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. So transfusions shouldn't be covered in medical plans they provide?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat would be at their option. In the event this became their practice, people would largely avoid being in their employ and the market would create an incentive to change their coverage. MUCH better solution than a government directive. What is it about free people making free (non-coerced) decisions in a free market that bothers you, Jprev40?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly! well said! And when the free market corrects itself it doesn't cost the taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars in disappearing bailout. Also abortions, euthanasia , etc are elective surgeries in essence, blood transfusions are generally part of emergency/ vital care ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an interesting article, on a question which needs much more attention. Yes, there is no doubt; Obama's policies will inevitably tend toward a stark duality of rulers & ruled; what Waugh called the 2 class society of officials and proletariat. The trend is, inevitably, to pare back the private sphere to nothing.
But this is certainly nothing new with this administration; it has been fully present in ALL progressive movements, back to Rousseau. And one element, the fundamental premise that as the ground of law, the State is absolute, is simply a universal modern assumption. (This does not mean that the foundation of the state--eg, the constitution--does not ideally limit the state. But that is itself a state document. The assumption is that all areas of life are subject to the state, unless specifically exclude from state control.)
That said, this sentence is arrant hogwash:
"To (vastly) oversimplify for a moment, that tradition began (in the 16th century, and in some respects even earlier) with the aim of protecting Protestant dissenters and Jews but (very intentionally) not protecting Catholics."
Uh, no. There was no desire on the part of the English state, before the 16th Century, to protect "Protestant dissenters & Jews". Both those goals come only in the 17th Century. Yes, the Protestant establishment was "protected"; indeed, through the 16th C, it was promoted as the only acceptable religion. period.
I suspect you have something substantive in mind here, but what ever it is, you didn't say it. You need to rephrase the point you intended to make.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, but I think this posting is only half-right. The issue is not just what religious liberty means, but how far acts must be protected along with conscience. The same general argument can be applied to ritualistic female genital mutilation and Peyote smoking. IF we hold that Congress has no power to regulate religious acts, THEN we leave it to an unelected judiciary to make the real policy.
Our founders rightly held that a republican form was more important to preserving liberty than a fixed Bill of Rights, depending as it would only on an unelected judiciary for enforcement. The argument against the "preventive care" mandate is that it horribly elevates public policy demands above historic spiritual convictions of the type that should be expected to encourage civil disobedience in the face of such public hostility.
A 2000 year-old text, very familiar to the American founders, defines true religion as serving the widows, orphans and needy. Surely the "free exercise" was meant to encompass such things. But it is our elected political officers who we must hold accountable for violating the common sense of the matter, while we should equally honor their reasonable objections to newly discovered peyote communion. (However, the common sense of opposition to contraception needs a much stronger defense than it's received the past 50 years.)
The Protestant rejection, 100 years ago, of an ethic of life is slowly yielding a secular, anti-life state. Now, Protestants have lost their claim to lead (Ron Paul is the only Protestant in the Republican primary and none now sit on the Supreme Court). Catholics had better evangelize the Protestants quickly or Christianity itself will soon be forgotten in America. But then, how many Catholics are truly evangelized about God's authorship of every human life?
The Catholic problem with Britain was the establishment of a competing Christian institution. Sadly, the Catholic (and Christian) problem with America is how believers have squandered their liberty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse''The Protestant rejection, 100 years ago, of an ethic of life is slowly yielding a secular, anti-life state.''
As a Protestant, I'm not sure I like being portrayed in such a light! The ''ethic of life'' is quite alive in certain Protestant circles. It's in the more liberal (''mainline'') denominations where acceptance of abortion is a growing or established trend.
That said, the question of where religious liberty begins and ends has always been contentious. Your examples of genital mutilation and peyote use might be instructive. In the former, outlawing such a practice serves not only to safeguard a potential victim's physical being but also her own freedom of religion (assuming she would say no if given the choice). The latter, however, would be a restriction on one's own practice. Not saying I'm agreeing with peyote use, but there's a difference in the degree in which the two influence other individuals.
When it comes to Obama and the issue of health care, the issue is actually very clear, and it is nothing like forbidding certain activity. In fact, it's the very opposite. Rather than ''thou shalt not'' it is ''thou must do''. Isn't it here where the line really lies?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is either a muslem or an atheist. Any comparison to that so called "church" of "Rev" Wrong is an insult to churches everywhere.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama’s Osawatomie Kansas Speech on December 7, 2011 primarily advocated the redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is the basis of Communism and Socialism.
www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/us/politics/text-obamas-speech...
Charles Krauthammer, MD is an American Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated political commentator, and physician. Dr. Krauthammer is probably the most respected and intelligent of all the political commentators on television. He said this article was an insult to Teddy Roosevelt, and it would be more appropriate to compare Obama to Hugo Chavez.
Do you remember when Obama said he wanted a “national security force”? Not the national guard, but a civilian one that has not sworn to uphold the Constitution? On July 2, 2008 in a speech in Colorado Springs, Barrack Obama called for a police state.
Here it is in his own words:
External Link
Why would he need his own private army? If he gets a second term, will he have his own army.. Why do they feel that they need to monitor our posts on this website? When will they knock on our door?
Have you ever seen the video of the officers of the Third Reich swearing allegiance to Adolph Hitler in 1934.. The oath pledged personal loyalty to the person of Adolf Hitler in place of loyalty to the constitution. Sound familiar?
We are on the verge of losing the greatest Democracy in the history of the world. This election is going to be a choice between Communism and Freedom. PLEASE get out and vote regardless of who the GOP nominee is. Turnout is the only thing that is going to prevent this from becoming a bankrupt Communist State within the next five years, As Ann Coulter said, Jeffery Dahmer would be better than what we have. This is going to be the most important election in the history of the United States, and it is going to be so close, that turnout will determine if we remain a democracy, or become a Communist state.
Radical anarchists and Communists such as David Axelrod, William Ayers, Saul Lewinsky, the “Rev” Wright and other ne’er-do-well’s, have been grooming Obama to take over this country for 20 years. Is that what you want? If not, PLEASE email this to every one you know.
This has been endorsed in my facebook by an individual with a MBA in political science and History from the United States Air Force Academy. (Available upon request).
"Communism is a philosophy of failure,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill
Using Notre Dame as an example, the folks who run that place should curtly tell the Obama Administration, "We will not violate our religious convictions and we will not 'render unto Caesar'. Do your worst, but remember: the Church has outlasted the Romans, the Nazis, and the Communists...and it will outlast you too."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse