Daily News

Rallying Cry for Religious Freedom Goes Out This Friday (4699)

Bill of Rights’ birthday to be celebrated in opposition to Obamacare.

Organizers of the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rally are hoping for an even bigger turnout than they had in March. This is a scene from that round of rallies, in Washington, D.C.

– Michelle Bauman/CNA

On Friday, June 8, the 223rd anniversary of James Madison’s introduction of the Bill of Rights to the first Congress, tens of thousands of people are expected to publicly defend a chief guarantee of the Bill of Right’s First Amendment, the free exercise of religion — and that in its fullest sense: not forcing people to violate their religious beliefs.

At noon local time, the second Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally will be held in more than 130 cities nationwide at federal buildings, congressional offices and historic sites. It is being staged in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s expected ruling in late June on the Affordable Care Act, including the controversial Department of Health and Human Services mandate requiring most private employers to provide co-pay-free contraceptive and sterilization coverage in health-care plans.

“The first time around in March we got so much publicity that we think we’ll be able to educate an even wider section of the populace about threats to our religious liberties, particularly the threat posed by the HHS mandate,” said Eric Scheidler, Stand Up’s co-director. He is also executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, part of a coalition of 65 religious and civil-rights organizations supporting the rally. “I’m encouraged, because I think what we’re seeing emerge is a sort of wide-reaching pushback against the marginalization of the voice of faith in the public square.”

An estimated 64,000 people participated in March. Scheidler hopes the number will increase this time due to improved communications, from standardized press releases and email templates to media alerts and talking points for rally captains organizing the events in their respective cities.

Given the increased preparation time for this set of rallies than the previous one, there have been fewer problems obtaining permits to stage them. There also seems to be less pushback from authorities this time around, perhaps due to the media exposure, organizers surmise.

“For the prior rallies, we had more trouble with the federal government than ever, in terms of getting permits to be on federal property for the rallies,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society, a public-interest law firm that “defends religious liberty, marriage and the sanctity of human life in courtrooms across the country.” The society serves as legal counsel for the rallies.

“The permit issues have been easier this time around, but there’ve been some challenges in various cities, and we’ve helped navigate those. In Miami, for example, the federal government had required that the name of an organization be placed on the permit application. In Dallas, the issue has been with the city of Dallas (regarding) some sort of 45-day advance requirement [to hold a rally]. But there were a lot of folks in Dallas who recently decided they wanted to come out for a rally, but [organizers] didn’t know 45 days ago that there was enough interest. We hope to work this out without going to court.”

Across Religious Lines

With the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ high-profile opposition to the HHS mandate and scores of Catholic colleges, organizations and individuals filing lawsuits against the federal government for its repeal, the case for religious liberty might be publicly perceived as a Catholic issue. Not so, say rally organizers. Speakers from a variety of Christian denominations and other religious faiths will address the crowds, stressing that religious freedom is an issue of universal — small “c” catholic — importance.

At Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago, Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz of Agudas Achim North Shore Congregation will share the podium with Catholics and Protestants and a Muslim attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom, another partner in the umbrella of organizations supporting the rallies.

“Religious freedom for Jews is a very sacred thing,” said Rabbi Lefkowitz, “and we don’t want to see encroachment by the government upon the religious community. I’m honored to be asked to speak.”

He noted that many conservative and Orthodox Jewish organizations, such as the Rabbinical Council of America, are “wholeheartedly supporting the Catholic Church’s courageous stand” for religious liberty and against the HHS mandate. But he is concerned about this being seen as a Catholic issue when it is an “issue for every religious person.”

“The idea that the Church, the collective religious community, must constantly be on the defense is quite obvious today,” said Rabbi Lefkowitz, founding chairman of the Legislative Commission of the Chicago Rabbinical Council. “There is a war on religion, and if you add to it the fact that America is no longer a Judeo-Christian society, we’ve got a very difficult situation to contend with. But we have to draw the line and make sure everyone understands that the separation of church and state means protecting the church from the state, not the other way around, or else it’ll be an absolute calamity.”

Although the HHS mandate in particular and Obamacare in general are the rallies’ focal points, Scheidler agrees with the rabbi that these are battles in a larger war.

“Even if the Supreme Court were to strike down the Obamacare law and effectively remove the problem of HHS, the bias against people of faith, their institutions and communities is still a large problem in American politics, society and culture,” said Scheidler. “In the coming months and years, we need to continue to make the case for a robust presence by faith communities in the public square.”

Bishops Need Lay Support

Monica Miller, director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, came up with the idea for the Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally, which she is co-directing with Scheidler.

“I had the idea that we should be doing something more active and make a public show of our opposition to the HHS mandate — instead of just writing letters and doing news interviews — so Eric and I teamed up together to do this,” she said from her home in Michigan. “This is a time in which Catholic bishops need the serious support of laypeople. We’re seeing some of the strongest statements maybe in the history of the Church in this country — like Cardinal [Francis] George [of Chicago] saying, ‘I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr.’ This is a very serious moment for the Church.”

Miller is the chief organizer for the Detroit rally, whose own Catholic shepherd will address an interfaith flock.

“It is important that we come together to face this serious challenge of defending our religious liberties,” Archbishop Allen Vigneron related in an exclusive statement for the Register. “The affronts to our freedoms within the health-care mandate are unprecedented, and we find ourselves having to fight to keep the protections that have always been provided us by the Constitution. The rally is about preserving the protections given to any religious institution. It’s about protecting the good of our Church and our entire nation — and that’s patriotic.”

Comments

Doug In (Too) Deep—When the Supreme Court throws out this regulation as violating the Constitution, I’ll look for you to issue an apology for your flawed arguments. The HHS mandate absolutely does not allow employers to practice their religion. The loss of a constitutional right should concern you—but you’re too enamored by your knowledge and God-given ability to express yourself that you can’t see what’s happening in our country at the hands of a fascist (and non-American) leader.

Posted by veritas on Thursday, Jun 7, 2012 10:26 PM (EDT):

RE: “Indeap” ... remember everyone ... do not feed the Trolls ... they only belch more and make a mess all over the carpet.

Posted by mark koscak on Thursday, Jun 7, 2012 9:30 PM (EDT):

Why don’t you tell us where these cities and locations are!!

Posted by Stargazer on Thursday, Jun 7, 2012 2:16 PM (EDT):

Doug Indeap:
How do you know in either instance you presented that an assessment penalty paid to the government would be cheaper than the self-insurer providing health care coverage? I submit that if any middle-man insurance company providing coverage (at an actuarial profit) is more expensive than self-insuring. And if the cost in assessment is more then it may be required to lay off employees to meet that expense.

Finally, if the government decided that you would be assessed a tax to support say slavery in the south USA AND slavery was an issue that was totally objectionable to your very being, should you have the right to object, sue and possibly refuse to comply with any law attempting to enforce that policy? I think that for some “the law” is their god, rather than subservient to God.

Posted by Antonio on Thursday, Jun 7, 2012 2:07 PM (EDT):

Doug: You have completely failed to answer to the simple (and true)common-sense economic arguments that Prof. Cochrane (University of Chicago) highlights in the above-mentioned WSJ article. Such mandate does not create value and instead destroys economic surplus. You (or anyone)will not need a PhD to follow the clear logic that Prof. Cochrane explains if you are open to be true, objective and honest in your thinking.
God bless,
Antonio, PhD in Finance

Posted by Doug Indeap on Thursday, Jun 7, 2012 12:02 PM (EDT):

Karen,

You suggest that it is somehow wrong to require payments of those who choose not to provide complying health care plans for religious reasons. (Note that some may do so for economic or other non-religious reasons.) Such requirements are hardly new or unusual. When the legislature anticipates that application of laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may afford some relief to conscientious objectors. In doing so, the legislature need not offer the objector a free pass. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to skip military service for “free”; rather, we have required them to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work.

In any event, objection to paying an assessment is simply not an argument about avoiding being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a garden-variety gripe common to most taxpayers—who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the government. Should each of us feel free to deduct from our taxes the portion that we figure would be spent on those actions (e.g., wars, health care, teaching evolution, subsidizing churches, whatever) each of us opposes? The hue and cry for an exemption is predicated on the false claim that employers otherwise are forced to act contrary to their religions. They are not.

Joe,

Feel free to decide what violates your conscience—when it concerns just you. But if you seek an exemption from a generally applicable law about insurance, etc., based on the claim it forces you to act contrary to your religious beliefs, it is entirely reasonable, even necessary, for the government, courts, etc., to determine the genuineness of your claim. Otherwise, anyone could skirt around any law merely by unilaterally declaring that his or her religion allowed or required it.

veritas,

While delighting in your discovery that I’ve posted similar comment on this subject before (hardly a surprise) and mistaking someone else’s comment about Huckabee for mine and indulging in argumentum ad hominem, you fail even to address the substance of my comment. Is that tacit concession of my points?

Stargazer,

You correctly observe that the accommodation would not benefit self-insured employers. My point is that, even without the accommodation, employers have choices that avoid acting contrary to their consciences. 1. Employers can decide whether to provide any health plans at all. If they choose not to provide any such plans, they merely pay assessments to the government (which amount to less than the cost of the health plans). 2. Employers can provide non-compliant health plans that omit coverage the employers deem objectionable. If they choose to do so, they must pay assessments (much smaller than assessments for failing to provide any health plans at all). 3. Under the proposed accommodation, employers can choose either of the foregoing and be relieved even of paying any assessments, and their insurers will instead provide the omitted coverage. Efforts are underway to develop a way for self-insured employers to enjoy the benefits of the accommodation as well. Perhaps we could simply call on them to become insured, which is hardly an unreasonable approach to avoiding the employers’ moral bind.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2012 3:43 PM (EDT):

@CiCi—so, all of the demonstrations set for this Friday are just a “diatribe about the HHS mandate?” Apparently you don’t care that the first amendment right to free practice of religion is now gravely threatened in the USA. You better wake up, CiCi, because the process already is in motion (little by little, piece by piece) that will deny you your right to practice the Catholic faith. I must commend you for one thing, though: you don’t read the garbage from the NY Times—although apparently they occasionally publish something accurate and worthwhile.

Posted by Bob Rowland on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2012 3:04 PM (EDT):

I can really see by some bigots on this blog why a new stand for religious freedom is badly needed.

Posted by CeCi on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2012 12:14 PM (EDT):

@Shamrock, first of all I don’t read the New York Times because I live in Utah and we get plenty of national and international news from our Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. I can’t believe you could equate the clergy sex scandal with the Monica Lewinsky scandal as being irrelevant. Why don’t you tell that to the thousands of parents whose children were sexually abused by the clergy that little tidbit of your’s. I’m a cradle Catholic and nothing, not the sex scandals nor this ridiculous diatribe about the HHS mandate will ever dampen my faith. Our clergy are supposed to be Christ’s representives on earth and are in a position of trust. But they are only human and commit sins just like the rest of us and no matter how you spin it, a scandal is a scandal.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2012 12:14 PM (EDT):

@Veritas—thank you so much for your excellent post! Let’s hope and pray that “Dug in deep” isn’t dug in so deep that he winds up in Hell—what a rude awakening that will be for him, when he realizes he can’t convince legislators to let him out of Hell. Truly, I do not wish Hell on him or anyone, but honestly, he better wise up before it’s too late. Again, thank you for the time you put into researching that troll and exposing him for what he is.

Posted by Shamrock on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2012 9:39 AM (EDT):

@Ceci…Why is it for some of you, everything concerning the Church must be seen through one focal point…the clergy sex scandal. It is the same mistake as, for example, evaluating all that happened during the Clinton Administration, only through matter of the Lewinsky affair. Totally
irrelavent to also evaluate the HHS mandate only in light of the clergy scandal. Faithful Catholics do protest both. They do not feel that
because the sex scandal occured therefore they can have no voice about
other injustices. To suggest otherwise is bigoted and illogical on your part. You do not have to give up your civil rights because some politicians in your state are guilty of lewd behaviour or corruption. Why should Catholic Christians? And, by the way, it is not only Catholics objecting (though if you read only the NYT you would think so).Many people of other faiths and persuasions also object to the redefining the Constitution by this Administration. The matter is now in the hands of the Supreme Court to decide.

Posted by Stargazer on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2012 6:38 AM (EDT):

To Doug Indeap: One problem with your argument is that many of the Catholic Church organizations are self-insured. So where does the money go that they would have to pay?

Posted by veritas on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2012 2:59 AM (EDT):

Fellow readers before you take him too seriously please note that “Doug Indeap” is a professional blogger running what he calls “The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!” On his blog site he asserts that “I practice land use and environmental law, which is expert-intensive, so I get to indulge my interests in science and nature by learning at the elbows of great teachers. I also enjoy serving on the boards of a couple of non-profits.”
A simple Google search reveals that this “51 to 60” year old lawyer/atheist has apparently posted hundreds of posts to redirect and/or deflect those posting comments off subject and dilute real discussion and/or the development of subject matters that are of importance to Believers. See http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/DougIndeap?xg_source=activity In a word he is what is called a “troll”.
With his numerous posts in such a short period of time he might consider changing his nom de plume from “Indeap” to a more descriptive “I am Legion”. It should be pointed out that this professing “nontheist” was so disingenuous as to pretend to be an initial supporter of Mike Huckabee in his quest for President: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/01/is_the_constitu.html
No surprise “Indeap” also claims that “Under our Constitution, the government has no business proclaiming that ‘we trust” “In God.’” http://gropingtheelephant.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html

One of many similar posts here is the snarky comment he made to Deacon Greg Kandra a Catholic deacon serving the Diocese of Brooklyn ......... “I wonder what they would say if they knew they had some of my “atheist dollars” in their wallets that can only be used for ungodly purposes, lest I suffer the indignity of paying for things I disbelieve.” See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/02/usccb-statement-a-first-step-in-the-right-direction/
One could go on etc. etc. etc. but for the final record counselor “Indeap” you have a very large void or “hole” in your reasoning ... Theist wisdom says that when you find your self in a “void” stop digging. Your posts are all premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Constitutional Law. The Constitution places certain matters beyond the purview of executive and legislative processes. Our individual rights, for instance, come from our Creator and are not up for majority vote, as you seem to suppose. ... Thank God mr. environmental lawyer that the citizen legislators of the original 13 States were unsullied by your “Georgetown” lawyer reasoning and the most States would not ratify the Constitution unless and until the Bill of Rights was appended. Thank You God that these stalwart Christians who had pledged their lives and fortunes and sacred honor to the cause had inherited from a firmly grounded Catholic civilization a very clear sense of the fallen nature of man and a healthy foreboding that the likes of you would show up one day to threaten these fundamental and God given Freedoms. Viva Cristo Re!

Why didn’t we hear the same rallying cries from the laity when the priests and bishops were raping and sodomizing thousands of our children and grandchildren and then using our donations to pay off the victims so they would keep their mouths shut and the entire hierarchy covered it up?

Posted by Eric Scheidler on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 7:53 PM (EDT):

@Angela

As one of the national coordinators of Friday’s Rallies (and one of the people quoted in this article), let me explain why we chose a Friday.

What this fight is really about is the role of faith in the public square. So we chose the most public time possible: midday during the work week.

Yes, more people might be able to attend on a Saturday (though weekends bring many other obligations, especially during June). Even more might be able to attend if we held the event on Sunday. In church. During worship services.

But that’s exactly what the architects of the HHS Mandate want: to relegate their narrow concept of religious activity to the weekend—as far outside public life as possible.

Our goal on June 8 isn’t to have the largest crowds possible—though we’re doing all we can to boost numbers—but to reach the PUBLIC, both in person and through the media. To do that, we have to rally on a Friday, not a Saturday.

Hope this explains our reasoning.

Eric Scheidler
Stand Up Rally Co-Chair

Posted by Nancy Janzen on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 7:53 PM (EDT):

Fight for the rights you have now. Do not let them tell us to be quiet and stay out of sight. I will be in Corpus Christi even if I have to ride 186 miles to do it.

Posted by CeCi Castillo on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 7:38 PM (EDT):

Just out of curiosity did all of you folks put this much energy in protesting the clergy sexual abuse and demanding that the hierarchy come clean about their complicity in sweeping it under the carpet???

Posted by Dominic Gabriel on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 6:26 PM (EDT):

So the government requires the jizya (tax on infidels) of Catholics who do not pay for services they think violate Natural Law, and that’s okay?

The USCCB has a Republican bias?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Posted by Jim on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 4:21 PM (EDT):

ol Lucy—We Catholics are most definitely glad you joined us. I 100% agree with you—either you’re Catholic and you believe everything the Church teaches, or you’re not—as Jesus told us, a man cannot serve two masters. You are a breath of fresh air.

Posted by olLucy Kubiszyn on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 3:06 PM (EDT):

As a convert to the Catholic faith, it’s hard to understand how any Catholic can support the Obama Administration’s and its stand on the HH Mandate along with abortion rights, gay marriage, and on and on. Either you’re Catholic or you’re not. Hooray for the Bishops who are finally standing up.

Posted by Matt Meeks on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 2:39 PM (EDT):

For those who think they can pick and choose what they believe as Catholics - who think their politics supercede their faith, I would like to share a letter written by our great Saint Padre Pio to His Holiness Pope Paul VI. In the letter, Padre Pio references Humanae Vitae - the Church’s divisive encyclical against contraception and abortion. Padre Pio tells the Holy Father that he offers up his suffering for those who dissent against the teachings of the Church on these subjects:

Your Holiness:

Availing myself of Your Holiness’ meeting with the Capitular Fathers, I unite myself in spirit with my Brothers, and in a spirit of faith, love and obedience to the greatness of Him whom you represent on earth, offer my respectful homage to Your August Person, humbly kneeling at Your feet.

The Capuchin Order has always been among the first in their love, fidelity and reverence for the Holy See. I pray the Lord that its members remain ever thus, continuing their tradition of seriousness and religious asceticism evangelical poverty, faithful observance of the Rule and Constitutions, renewing themselves in vigorous living and deep interior spirit—always ready, at the least gesture from Your Holiness, to go forward at once to assist the Church in her needs.

I know that Your heart suffers much these days on account of the happenings in the Church: for peace in the world, for the great needs of its peoples; but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the lofty teachings which You, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, have given us. I offer Your Holiness my daily prayers and sufferings, the insignificant but sincere offering of the least of your sons, asking the Lord to comfort you with His grace to continue along the direct yet often burdensome way—in defense of those eternal truths which can never change with the times.

In the name of my spiritual sons and of the “Praying Groups” I thank Your Holiness for the clear and decisive words You have spoken in the recent encyclical, “Humanae Vitae”, and I reaffirm my own faith and my unconditional obedience to Your inspired directives.

May God grant truth to triumph, and, may pence be given to His Church, tranquility to the people of the earth, and health and prosperity to Your Holiness, so that when these disturbing clouds pass over, the Reign of God may triumph in all hearts, through the Apostolic Works of the Supreme Shepherd of all Christians.

Prostrate at Your feet, I beg you to bless me, my Brothers in religion, my spiritual sons, the “Praying Groups”, all the sick—that we may faithfully fulfill the good works done in the Name of Jesus and under your protection.

* It is NOT fair, NOT just, and IMmoral;
* It does not force our religious beliefs about contraception on non-Catholics; NOR DOES NOT PAYING FOR SOMEONE ELSES USE OF CONTRACEPTION FORCE OUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON NON-CATHOLICS. YOUR PILL, YOUR BILL.
* When a real threat to religious freedom appears, we will not be accused of “crying wolf” again. << You sir are either lazy or a coward. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)

Posted by Maggie on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 2:04 PM (EDT):

I went to the first rally. Unfortunately I can only attend in spirit this time since God hasn’t given me the gift of bi-location, yet.

Posted by Jim on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 1:20 PM (EDT):

Angela, You’re not making any sense. The organizers of this protest want as many supporters as possible to be there, regardless of age. I am (apparently) much older than you, but I am not retired, so will have a hard time getting to a rally myself. It would be advantageous for the protest to be perceived as coming more from the young than the old, as the young are the future of our country—they are the demographic to which Obama tries to appeal—so the young are a potent political force. As an older person, I hope as many 20-somethings can make it—which should not be all that hard, as 53% of the last graduating class from college are either unemployed or under-employed.

Posted by angela r. on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 11:58 AM (EDT):

While I want to love this protest, I have the same reservations I had before, and the same complaints that were completely ignored. I thought maybe last time the issue was that it was cobbled together last second. I thought it was a nice coincidence that it was on the anniversary of “liberty or death”. However I thought ” whata great way to automatically exclude young people, by arranging a protest in the middle of the day on Friday, during work hours, instead of Saturday when more people could come.” Now I realize the anniversary thing is just a gimmick, and can only include its intentional that people in their 20’s are not included. Way to play into media stereotypes.

One of the speakers for grand rapids michigan had to rush her speech because she had to come on her lunch break! You guys sure know how to plan to fail.

I’m dissapointed but I will still pray for the movemnt. Wish I and a lot of my friends could come, but we have to work or get fired. Good job helping to frame the anti-hhs crowd as a bunch of angry retirees.

To Cleveland Dad-
Who are you to presume to speak for millions of American Catholics?
I, and many people I have spoken to personally - Catholic AND non-Catholic - fully support our bishops position. We are also delighted to witness them stand in solidarity across this nation, thank them for their courage, and pray for them. I would suggest you consider doing the same. While you still have some rights.

Posted by Antonio on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 11:28 AM (EDT):

Dear Doug,
Check this article on the WSJ :“The Real Trouble With the Birth-Control Mandate ” By John H. Cochrane (9 February 2012)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577210730406555906.html?grcc=grdt&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion
“Mr. Cochrane is a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.”
It provides simple and powerful economic reasons for the nonsense of the HHS mandate (beyond any partisan or moral point of view… in sum, the HHS is a bad economic proposal, besides the direct hit against religious freedom)

Here are few short excerpts (of course the whole article offers more and stronger economic arguments)
“
Critics are missing the larger point. Why should the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decree that any of us must pay for “insurance” that covers contraceptives?
I put “insurance” in quotes for a reason. Insurance is supposed to mean a contract, by which a company pays for large, unanticipated expenses in return for a premium: expenses like your house burning down, your car getting stolen or a big medical bill.
Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses. There are good reasons that your car insurance company doesn’t add $100 per year to your premium and then cover oil changes, and that your health insurance doesn’t charge $50 more per year and cover toothpaste. You’d have to fill out mountains of paperwork, the oil-change and toothpaste markets would become much less competitive, and you’d end up spending more. ...
...
It’s not about “access” and it’s not about “insurance.” It’s because Americans, when paying even modest co-payments, choose to spend their money on other things. ...
Sorry. Every increase in coverage means an increase in premiums. If your employer is paying for your health insurance, he could be paying you more in salary instead. Or, he could be lowering prices and selling his product to you and all consumers more cheaply. Someone is paying. Not even HHS tries to claim that these “recommended preventive services” will lower overall costs.

...
If the government wants to subsidize birth control, OK, pass an explicit tax, and sensibly subsidize all birth control. And face the voters on it.
Sure, churches should be exempt. We should all be exempt.

Posted by Karen Salstrom on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 11:26 AM (EDT):

To Doug Indeap… I couldn’t get too far into your post because of the faulty logic you posted in the first few sentences. you are correct that is an employer does not wish to participate, they will end up paying the government for the privilege of not participating. if that does not with a gigantic red flag for you, I have no desire to even read the rest of your post. pay in order to have a conscience objection? pay in order to have freedom of religion? you had better rethink your stand for the particular freedom you treasure will be at jeopardy next.

in fact perhaps you should look into a very recent signing by the president that limit free speech for all americans and that includes you sir. H.R. 347 infringes upon the freedom to assemble. google that bill and you can read the actual wording and a discussion buy many groups including the aclu.

you should also go see the movie FOR GREATER GLORY with Andy Garcia to get a real eye opener of what can happen when the government begins this type of restriction

Abortion: A choice between two bodies not one; there are two heart+beats. (T. Squitti)

Posted by Caesar J. B. Squitti on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 8:59 AM (EDT):

This drive for freedom of religion is also a drive to allow THE TRUTH to be known.

It would appear that many truths, many half-truths, as in parts-of-the-truth have replaced THE TRUTH.

A women’s choice over her body, is not exactly correct, it is a women’s choice over a body within hers that belongs in part to a father.

We are all equal before God, or the law, has been replaced with the false statement, ‘we are all equal’.

We must learn that there are those who would spin the truth to make lies out of them.

Posted by Cleveland Dad on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 7:12 AM (EDT):

Please do your readers a favor and honestly ADMIT your REPUBLICAN Party bias. Millions of us American Catholics know that the issue is NOT about religious freedom; the Obama Administration has offered a compromise which we should accept because:

* It is fair, just, and moral;
* It does not force our religious beliefs about contraception on non-Catholics;
* When a real threat to religious freedom appears, we will not be accused of “crying wolf” again.

Posted by Doug Indeap on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2012 2:27 AM (EDT):

Arguments that the health care law infringes religious liberty are largely predicated on a big lie. Notwithstanding the bishops’ arm waving about religious liberty, the law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences.

Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forces employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers consider immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government (which, by the way, would generally amount to far less than the cost of health plans). Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved.

Some nonetheless have continued clamoring for such an exemption, complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed. They seemingly missed that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral?

In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.

Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers or employees pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag “our” dollars this way and control their subsequent use.

The bishops are coming across more and more as just another special interest group with a big lobbying operation and a big budget—one, moreover, that is not above stretching the truth.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.