Is access to birth control a barrier to religious liberty? Bishop Edward Burns apparently believes so, while Reverend Susan Boegli expresses a well-crafted counter opinion in her My Turn of June 14. In his Juneau Empire column of June 10, the Bishop repeats his lament against the federal directive to provide health care insurance for contraception. He fails to mention that churches are specifically exempted from the directive, though this law does apply to other religious organizations, such as hospitals and universities, that serve the general public and employ people regardless of their faith.
While the religious right expresses grave concern over the “loss” of religious freedom in the USA, they may also wish to be equally concerned about how their views are seen as intolerant by rapidly-growing numbers of young people. As recently reported by professors at Notre Dame and Harvard, the percent of 20-somethings who have rejected all religious affiliation today stands at 33 percent, compared with 12 percent in the 1970s. More and more adults of all ages — 70 percent in the Notre Dame/Harvard surveys — believe religion should stay out of public debates over social and political issues. It is time for conservative Christian leaders to listen to their followers and especially to their followers’ sons and daughters who have left the “flocks” due to the Sunday sermons’ outdated views on family planning, women’s rights, gay rights, and other contemporary social issues. Day by day, these leaders’ views are increasingly out of step with those of most citizens of the USA. There is perhaps no more vivid testament to conservative leaders’ outdated thinking than the fact that sexually-active Catholic women use birth-control in the USA to the same extent that their non-Catholic counterparts do.
There is no debate that religion has historically played a significant role in American public life, as is to be expected in a country where the majority of the public professes a belief in God. However, the wringing of hands over the “loss” of religious freedoms, while promoting the limitation of personal freedoms, will do little to create a more enlightened society.
Susan Schrader
Douglas
Comments (21)
Add commentWhat losses?
There are churches on practically every corner in this country. They're free to not pay taxes. Politicians routinely pay homage to the churches during campaigns. Churches are given taxpayer dollars for their programs. Church leaders like Bishop Burns are allowed to practice political advocacy from the pew (& the pages of the Empire).
Churches have a sweet deal, a lucrative deal going in this country. The only way they'll blow it is by embracing ignorance and intolerance.
I have faith in this younger generation
The fact that this younger generation is becoming more socially conscious and less religious is encouraging!
The occupy movements show they have a genuine concern for society and are fighting the things they see as being broken. They are not afraid of "the Man."
The fact that they are becoming less and less religious is encouraging as well, for they see the religion of their ancestors as the folklore it is. And society is evolving away from it as a result.
The younger generation sees homosexuality existing in nature and something that is totally natural, as opposed to something that is freakish and worthy of oppression. Gay marriage for all states is just around the corner!
I have faith (pun intended) in this newer generation.
Santa's soul
Theologians believe there is a mighty difference between, on the one hand, studying how a soul fits into embryogenesis and on the other, discerning the color and weave of Kris Kringle's pants.
There is no difference; theology is devoid of knowledge.
Those are the kind of people you are up against Sue.
Mike
@Lat58
1. Good morning.
2. I'll argue that it's not political advocacy when the Church is defending itself from a regulatory fiat that violates its precepts. The Church is not saying "no birth control for anyone, because I say so;" rather, "I object to this directive that infringes upon the tenets of faith," which are protected by the First Amendment.
Say you had a group insurance policy for your place of business and a national mandate came down that required you to provide zombie-attack coverage for your employees. But you don't believe in zombies, nor does the fact that 90% of your employees carry zombie-repellent make you pre-disposed to bite the bullet and get the coverage. In fact, you are willing to take this to the Top! "I will not provide protection-against-the-undead coverage for my employees!" Difference is, you have no backing from the Constitution. You're out of luck.
If it's not arrogance on the part of the administration, then what to call it? Over-zealous?
Red herring . . .
The issue of contraception and the Catholic Church has nothing to do with religion, given that the virtual totality of Catholics avail themselves of its use. It is an election year and the concocted controversy forms a wedge issue that people predisposed to manipulation galvanize behind. It is the susceptibility of the electorate to be gamed into factions that would deny the equal treatment or the rights of individuals or the interests of the whole community that is troubling. This is not a new phenomenon but in recent decades its destructive force has been amplified by the proliferation of special interest groups and money in politics as well as the advent of broad base media outlets that serve as echo chambers for the special interest groups. For a democracy to be an effective bulwark against factions its electorate must be informed and critical and the elected body must be ethical and possessed of integrity. I believe we are lacking in both; thus, you get no-issues, such as this one, manufactured from whole cloth.
teabagger
I use red herrings for crab bait. They work pretty well.
Cute zombie scenario, grendel. Interesting how you equated the catholic church to a "place of business". Well played.
And of course, there's always that little 'accepting taxpayer money' part of the story that you conveniently neglect to mention.
If it's not dishonesty on the part of the church, what to call it?
@Latitude58
What else do you call a Catholic charity like St Vincent de Paul Society? It is a physical place and holds a business license, ergo...
Lots of non-profit, not-for-profit organizations are recipients of federal and state grants. That's nothing new. So just what is new that's entered into the equation? Starts with "over" and ends with "reach".
You call it dishonest; I like the term Right to Dissent, "the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction."
Grendel - your argument
doesn't hold water, and here's why:
As already pointed out - churches are exempt.
This leaves church-affiliated organizations, which accept public funds, and both hire and serve people of all faiths.
But the kicker is, that most of these church-affiliated organizations, like hospitals, Georgetown University, etc. Have already been paying, freely and on their own, for reproductive health services insurance, in some cases for decades.
How is it "infringing on your faith" to clarify something in law that you've already been doing freely on your own?
@SG
the difference is between offering a benefit and mandating a benefit. I dont mean to trivialize the issue (because you have a valid point), but consider:
What is the difference between providing a hamburger made to order (ie, you have The Works in the kitchen, but you cater to the customer) and providing a hamburger that must have the following: burger, tomato, lettuce, special sauce, and onion? Suppose you dont want onion? Too bad, YOU pick it off, because every burger nationwide must have these requirements to constitute a hamburger.
I suspect you've done the research, because I havent, but I have to wonder, did these affiliated organizations seek out group policies that offered these benefits, or was it part of the Full Meal Deal? Now that they are mandated changes the equation. Again, trivial, but suppose you really had a thing against onions (childhood trauma), but now you are mandated to serve them on every burger made in your joint?
Please, let's not drive the burger analogy into the dirt, unless necessary. I'm a fish guy.
Fairness
If this policy were focusing only on church affiliated operations, that'd be one thing. But it's consistent with the larger Affordable Care Act mandates. Lots of businesses and individuals are being mandated as part of this. If a church runs a business, and that business accepts taxpayer dollars, get in line with everyone else...or don't accept taxpayer dollars.
If your beef is about the "overreach" of the federal government in regards to mandating insurance, well, you may receive some vindication from the court soon. But that vindication will be based on the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with 'religious freedom'.
right on
that's what I would expect, because the Supreme Court is ruling on statute; the "guts" of the Act are in CFR handed down by HHS.
grendel......
hmm.....but - if you are a business, the government mandates ALL KINDS of things in order to ensure the health and welfare of the common good. You are required to cook the burger to a certain temperature, cleanliness standards in your restaurant are required for all, fire alarms in your business, handicapped access, the list goes on and on. For hospitals and universities, add requirements for protection of customer records; licensing requirements for doctors, cleanliness standards for hospitals, how drugs and operating tools are handled, etc. Perhaps that's a lot of regulation - but would you want to go to a hospital that wasn't required to sterilize the scalpel in between surgeries? Because you know SOMEONE would cut that corner.
You are viewing the business as the ultimate customer, and ignoring the rights of the employees. I'm viewing the employees as the ultimate customer, recognizing that the business has a responsibility to them.
As a business, if you insist your "freedom is violated" if you have to serve onions on your burger, because your board of dirctors in Rome says your CEO living in Heavenistan believes everyone should hate onions because of his childhood trauma over 2,000 years ago, but 98% of your customers love onions and the onions are in the best interest of their health today, and the board of directors is not required to EAT the onions - then who is trampling on who's freedoms?
swimmergirl...
are you suggesting that just because your employer isnt footing the tab for your birth control your freedoms are being trampled? Nevermind the "why" your employer isnt paying for it, let's focus on the implications that your complete expectations of freedom in these United States are somehow not so complete because you have to buy your birth control or pay for your procedure instead of your employer. That sound trite to me. I'll even call it petty. I doubt anyone ever went to war, or will take a bullet in a future war, to protect your entitlement to contraception.
Grendel -
Grendel - I'm suggesting that an employer's freedom of religion does not trump my right to be free FROM the tenants of that religion, if I work in an establishment that is not allowed discriminatory hire, and which takes government funds, and considering that birth control has been a basic part of women's health care, and covered under every insurance program I've ever heard of for the last 40 years, and particularly when the "moral outrage" of that 'employer' is ginned up at best.
Swimmergirl
So if the target of your angst (and the collective angst of American women everywhere who are subjugated under the yoke of papist tyranny) is your employer, then SUE them! SUE them silly! The ACLU should be beating your door down to make it happen. Go on the offensive. Don't take this lying down. You can get mental anguish, too. I'm sure. I'm POSITIVE.
Hey Swimmergirl
Feeling patronized yet?
Patronizing?
nothing a hard dose of reality cant fix. You ARE entitled to that.
@Grendal
Your reality is different then the majority of the American public. Your reality is flawed!
@billb
we will see. I stand firm; how 'bout you?
All the scenarios here are
All the scenarios here are silly. No need to try and warp the issues. Pretty simple. Big companies now are considered Americans and money is actually free speech.
A company doesn't want to offer something? That's they're choice. While I think it's stupid that anyone wants more children to be born when WE as a NATION can't take care of the children we already have, I'm tired of the government infringing on our rights. Companies are getting human rights and human rights are being challenged.
And wtf ever happened to separation of church and state? All public money should be pulled from every single religious institute.
And this is coming from someone that doesn't condemn religion, for every horrible thing carried out in the name of god it has also set the standard for what is acceptable and moral. At least at the very basics. There are many people out there that are 'good' people solely because of religion. To say religion is evil just means you don't need it, many people do.
Actually, the Catholic position on this ISN'T carved in stone
"Humane Vitae(on Human Life)" the most 1968 encyclical issued by Paul VI, was NOT delivered "ex cathedra"-that is, the Holy Father did not invoke papal infallibility on the matter...therefore, it could be taken up and reversed by any future pontiff at any time.
Not sure why the Church is going to the mat for something that might not even be doctrine at all in another 25 years or so, and that has been ignored by the overwhelming majority of North American and European Catholics ever since it was issued.