Obama’s “war on religion”

The president picks an unnecessary fight with the mighty Catholic church

See article

Readers' comments



The general point is that Americans are very confused about the relationship between the Constitution and the zeal with which most follow one or another monotheistic religions. It was precisely because religious belief is so divisive, intolerant, and bigoted that the Founding Fathers sought to insulate the function of the State from the problems of belief. Unfortunately the Constitution was written by highly intelligent and thoughtful products of The Enlightenment whereas the electorate, by and large, are the product of a less broad-minded, tolerant, and thoughtful environment.

Pompatus in reply to CA-Oxonian

There's some truth to that of course, but they also chose to protect religion from the state. There was another revolution, right across the Atlantic, where the founding fathers DID believe exactly what you say. It wound up with some wild-eyed nitwit dressed up like the sun god and something called "Thermidor". Oh and blood, lots of blood.

Also, you can quote them extensively on the importance of faith for a Republic.

And those "thoughtful products of the Enlightenment" included a bunch of people who thought it was just delightful to enslave their fellow citizens. It took a religious sentiment "Am I not a man and a brother", expressed politically by the first Republican President, who, quoting from bible, said "A house divided against itself cannot stand" to finally extirpate that original sin.

In America people have expressed their faith by marching against Jim Crow, as well as by burning crosses. There's good and bad, but a political statement should not be dismissed out of hand just because it springs from faith.

McJakome in reply to Pompatus

James Madison,c. 1832 on church & state:
"The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfering in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."

Such trespass as the RCC preventing divorce, contraception, abortion and meat on Fridays in Massachusetts through its influence on the government, applied to all not just Catholics.

Pompatus in reply to McJakome

Why are people of religion a "sect" but secularists aren't.

Also, religious opposition to child labor, inhumane working conditions, and violence to women (the third great awakening) affected more than people of religion. Good!

And remember, the RCC has also been subjected to substantial discrimination in this country. Remember that the state of Massachusetts, the one you used as an example, used to prevent Catholics FROM VOTING! So you can understand why the RCC might be a little touchy about being told to shove it by the government.

The James Madison quote above decries the tendency of ALL factions, not just religious ones, which he argues can best be protected against by limiting the scope of government. How exactly does Obamacare jibe with a concept of government that does not "beyond the necessity of preserving public order"?

McJakome in reply to Pompatus

I appreciate your intelligent, willing to discuss issues reply. I am not opposed to any religion, even the one I left in disgust after being abused by a priest [the RCC]. Yes the Catholic Church has some good deeds to its credit, and yes the misdeeds are still a problem.

A characteristic of bullying is that those who have been bullied often resort to the same behavior. The Protestant Reformation resorted to the same tactics previously used by the Catholic church, and the Counter Reformation returned the favor. That this continued in Massachusetts is in the historical record.

It is time to stop the bullying, is it not? While I would like to see the guilty priests, bishops and cardinals punished for their crimes, I do not hold those crimes against innocent priests and laity. Like Martin Luther I believe Reformation of the RCC is long overdue, but that needs to be done by Catholics.

Do Catholic people, organizations and the church seek to change the laws governing marriage and reproduction? YES.
Do these changes reflect their religious dogma? YES.
Would these changes conflict with the beliefs and desires of others? YES.
Are they willing to impose these beliefs on non-believers? YES.
The answer to all is yes, and violates separation of church & state in favor of their religion's dogma. So why should the state accept the one-way interpretation of separation of church and state?

Why should non-Catholics be subject to Catholic dogma in which they do not believe, and why should they not resist to the point of retaliation? You did note that the protection of religions from each other was one concern, right?

Live and let live should be the order of the day, shouldn't it?

Pompatus in reply to Pompatus

Although your point that the RCC does infringe on other people's rights when they are in the majority is well taken. Yes, Obama and religious fundamentalists are equally bad.

You should be able to buy meat on Fridays, liquor on Sundays, and contraception any day. But I ain't gonna expect the bishop to buy it for me.

And as someone else pointed out, the RCC opposes harsh anti-immigrant laws because their religion says that we are all part of one great mass called humanity - all brothers and sisters. How small minded of them!

There's good and there's bad, that's all I'm saying.

Pompatus in reply to Pompatus

I'm sorry for missing your last post.
The abuse that the Catholic church turned its back on, another in the long list of failings, is truly abhorrent.
The fact that you are still so understanding of Catholicism, and the laity in general, does you great credit.
And I agree with you absolutely. Truly, there is always a need for greater respect for the concerns of others, and in a democracy this is both the more needed and the more lacking.


It is about time for everyone to confront the tragic role of the Catholic Church in history, a self-sustaining obscurantist anti-rational institution persecuting and torturing its way to power and wealth on the strength of superstition cloaked in the illusion of mystic authority. It will drag us all down to destruction -- is it just a coincidence that the defaulting nations threatening the world economy are all countries in which the Catholic Church, Roman or Orthodox, has been the dominant moral authority. Jesus was right -- salvation lies in the heart of the individual, not the priests or the Temple.

TwoGunChuck in reply to jebron

jebron: England was hanging people in droves for petty crimes long after Catholic countries abandoned execution for heresy. Why don't you carp about England?

As for Catholic countries defaulting, Greece is not Catholic -- Pope has nothing to do with those guys -- and Austria, Belgium, Bavaria and other Catholic strongholds are doing just fine.

As for you remarks about Jesus, I suggest you go back and read the Gospels -- Jesus regularly worshipped at the temple and relied on his disciples to spread his word. He also made pretty stern demands on people. He was not a hippy or a flower child. More like an Elijah.

guest-iwnsmea in reply to jebron

It is about time for you to confront your own ignorance regarding history and your biased, hate-filled perceptions of the Roman Catholic Church. What might I ask is so "rational" about your above comment "it will drag us all down to destruction"? The Catholic Church has existed for over 2000 years, and endured momentous events (for better or worse) such as the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and too many world wars. Despite these events, and its lasting presence on the fabric of modern society, you assert that a relatively minor issue (compared to Luther's 95 Theses), that of a moral stance against contraception and religious freedom, will spell doom for millions? This seems infantile, idiotic, and above all, irrational. You certainly know how to use a thesaurus in order to look up large words like "obscurantist", but your vocabulary fails to mask both your poor use of grammar and the English language. I recommend you pick up a few history books and actually read them. In addition, while you are pondering the true meaning of the word "rational", I recommend reading St. Augustine's "City of God", "Confessions", and "On Free Choice of the Will". I hope these will enlighten you, and perhaps provide you with an example of intellectual, rational thought.

Jean Baptiste in reply to jebron

It's pretty obvious that you hate the Catholic church, but there is no reason for you to use this article to attack it. Your claim that all countries which are Catholic are the defaulting nations is just plain ridiculous. In the US, its probably the predominant religion, is it not? FYI, there are more than 1 billion catholics worldwide and we are present in all countries on Earth, and will be, per omnia sæcula sæculorum.

McJakome in reply to Jean Baptiste

It is historically accurate that Protestant countries are Protestant in reaction to the arrogant and violent acts of the Catholic church. Imposing Catholic doctrine on non-Catholics against their wishes is the same arrogance now as it was in the days of the unHoly Inquisition.

If the Catholic church is hated by its victims, it should stop victimizing people and ask for forgiveness.

Soquel by the Creek in reply to jebron

jebron, I too was anti-Catholic. Throughout the ages, countless atrocities were committed by those under the auspices of the Catholic Church. But the same can be said for just about any group with control and power. Just ask the Cherokee Nation about their excellent treatment at the hands of the Jackson Administration (the man who decorates the $20 bill). If you're a student of history, you can also see how the Church was corrupted as various governments attempted to control the Church (Kings of France, England, etc.). Also read about the Great Schism, when there were two popes.

I'm now much more pro-Catholic. Why? Because I'm involved in a group that includes Catholic believers. They're civic minded. They fund schools and hospitals. They're for real social justice and not the buzzword foisted by some on the Left. The Catholic Church in our area has been reaching out to other faiths and even hosts a Passover seder meal with a local synagogue.

Reach out to actual modern Catholics. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I certainly was and it changed my mind about the Catholic Church. However, I am still not Catholic.


Bravo, The Economist has produced yet another completely biased article. With every article like this one, The Economist's reputation gets pushed furthers down the drain. "But ideology is just a pejorative word for principles in which you happen not to believe. This is a case of two principles colliding." This issue that has sadly sprung up has absolutely nothing to do with "two principles colliding", this is solely a violation of the First Amendment. But the author of this article acted like they respected the First Amendment and Speaker Gingrich doesn't. Why does this have to be about a collision of two principles? Why do we just ignore the basic founding principles that the United States was founded upon? It's completely fine if you believe in universal health care or abortions, but nowhere in the United States Constitution does it say that you are allowed to fine every citizen if they do not comply with the Federal Government's mandate. The egotistical minds of Washington whom believe that they understand how life works better than the average citizen is what is wrong with this country. Not to mention that the people give the government the power and the money to operate, but too often Americans forget that they are the one's in control, and too often Americans forget that once you start degrading the Constitution the great Republic that we know as the United States will no longer stand. This is purely an issue about the federal government disobeying our rule of law and ignoring the principles we live by.

AlfredYWong in reply to Pesquera91

Nowhere in US constitution does it say either that poverty is bad, that drugs should be illegal, or that people need health care. The Constitution is a 300-year-old document that establishes the principles that the nation should be governed under, but it's not the 18th century today, and the Constitution alone cannot deal with all modern issues, least of all the role of religious beliefs in provision of abortion funds in health insurance policies (two of those terms didn't exist in the modern sense back then).

Perhaps the government doesn't understand better than "the average citizen" what is wrong with America. The problem is that every average citizen has a firm knowledge of what is wrong with America. For some, it's the Fed; for others, it's the religious establishment; for some others, it's Wall Street. I'd think that one of the main problems in Washington is that elected representatives of the people reflect the beliefs of their constituents too well, resulting in gridlock between the left and right, both of which are held hostage by their most extreme members.

In regards to the First Amendment, the law is not requiring all churches to provide contraceptives and abortions, but all church-affiliated hospitals, schools and universities. Now if those institutions refuses to buy insurance covering abortion, that would be violating the rights of the employees who do not adhere to that religion, and should have access to abortion. The requirement does not force employees to use contraception or have abortions. It merely says that employers must provide health insurance for their employees, which include abortions and contraception. The analogy would be, if you did not agree with the government using taxpayers money for foreign wars, you then stopped paying taxes.

In regards to Speaker Gingrich's comments, the author of the article did not postulate at any point that the former Speaker had violated or disrespected the First Amendment (I'm assuming you mean the free speech clause) but merely pointing out the fact that Mr. Gingrich is upholding the priority of "his religion" (Catholicism) at the expense of "every religion on the planet". A president who is "tired" of religious tolerance might be a rather unconstitutional one.

AlfredYWong in reply to Pesquera91

Apologies: my last post says that the law requires church-affiliated institutions to pay for abortions as well as contraception; this is not true (unless counting the morning-after pill) please ignore any references to abortion. Sorry.

TwoGunChuck in reply to AlfredYWong

Alfred, you are missing the point.

First, there is clearly no consitutional right to health insurance of any sort. All courts agree on that. The Federal government's power to require and regulate employment conditions and require health insurance is based (dubiously) on its Art. I Sec. 8 power to regulate commerce between the states. This is purely statutory. Its exercise may create statutory rights, but not constitutional rights. Could Congress, using this power, forbid the interstate transportation of religious items? Easy case, answer no. Can it use this power to require charitable institutions with no real connection to interstate commerce, operated by a religious entity, to behave exactly like secular institutions in all respects? Seems like a pretty big stretch, doesn't it?

It's worth noting that Obama's justice department was just slapped down with a unanimous Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but clearly Obama and his idiots learned nothing from it. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_bars_narcoleptic_lu...

AlfredYWong in reply to TwoGunChuck

I admit that constitutional law is not a field that I'm familiar with. I just think that because the founders of the US did not think that regulating workplace conditions to be as important to include in the constitution as maintaining post offices, doesn't preclude the rightness of those regulations.

In my opinion, it should be the other way around: something is unconstitutional not because it is not supported by a section of the Constitution, but rather when it violates a section of it. That is, the burden of proof is on the critics to prove something unconstitutional, not for supporters to prove something constitutional.

But I don't really know, especially since I have no opinion (due to lack of information) on whether "interstate commerce" covers workplace condition regulation.

In regards to whether the federal government can require charitable institutions to behave exactly like secular institutions: in my view, in this case there is no pertinent difference between secular and religious institutions (universities, schools, hospitals). They are employers, and employers have to provide health care insurance for their employees. The minimum such insurance as required includes funding for contraception. I also think that church-affiliated institutions are employers first and houses of worship second, and should thus adhere to employment conditions regulations.

An All American in reply to TwoGunChuck

TwoGun you are correct. There is no constitutional right to health insurance. However, we have an inalienable constitutional right to Life and Liberty. If the government can tax my income to go to the moon, fight wars,rebuild countries,and provide foreign aid, then they should be obligated to use my tax money for my health first. I work for myself not others. The Supreme Court was wrong. Who earns the money that the government spends?

zu6kVNAYa8 in reply to Pesquera91

So you're okay with fining citizens for not carrying minimum auto insurance? And your last statement is comically incorrect. There are lots of us out there who don't think like you do, thank God.

Paul Marks in reply to AlfredYWong

Many thanks for your honesty in admitting that you hate the limited government principles of the United States Constitution - sadly some who share your hatred, such as Comrade Barack, do not share your honesty (and pretend to love the Consitution that they really hate).

As for you view that the United States Constitution is out-of-date (as if a 21st century government would be fundementally better at controlling such things as health care than an 18th century government) - well then AMEND the U.S. Constitution. Or call a Convention and write a new Constitution.

After all two thirds of the States (without the consent of Congress) may call a Convention.

The United States Constitution (as you, de facto, admit) forbids the Federal government doing the things you want it to do. So try and amend it, or try and replace it with a Constitution more to your likeing. But do not do the "Progressive" thing of trying to pretend the Constitution of the United States allows the sort of unlimited government that it was written to prevent.

AlfredYWong in reply to Paul Marks

I wasn't expressing my "hatred" of the limited government clause of the Constitution. I merely think that all people have the right to health care. This is already true, as no emergency room can turn down a patient because he/she doesn't have health care (maybe they should; that's not really something I support). Therefore, a person without health insurance is getting health care for free; freeloaders is the term for those people, I think.

I also think that people should be able to have an intellectual discussion about the Constitution and laws regarding it without having that discussion devolve into accusations about "hating" the Constitution; neither myself nor Obama hates the Constitution or America, and your blind allegations to such only shows that you can't have a discussion of constitutional principles without mudslinging, much like modern media.

In regards to changing the Constitution, I don't think that's necessary. In my view, the Constitution is, as I've said above, a set of rules that no court or Congress can violate; however, I also don't think that every action needs to be justified by an article of the Constitution. Part of the reason that I don't think constitutional amendment is necessary in this context is because there is obviously no chance that such change can get through on this issue. But because something is not popular in some states does not mean that it is not necessary or right.

C'mon AlfredYWong. You wrote "the law is not requiring all churches to provide contraceptives and abortions, but all church-affiliated hospitals, schools and universities."

In many cases, "church-affiliated" means facilities owned and operated by the Church using funds freely-given by private citizens.

Okay, you don't like the First Amendment. Then how about the Fourth Amendment against illegal seizure of property by the government. Mandating that Catholic-owned facilities provide procedures that DIRECTLY CONFLICT with their core beliefs amounts to a federal usurpation of the property of the Catholic Church.

Paul Marks in reply to AlfredYWong

My apologies.

If you wish to use the word "opposition" rather than "hatred" I have no objection.

I tend to assume that people share my rather passionate view of polticial matters (on both sides), but I fully accept that you take a less passionate view.

However, the basic point remains - the United States Constitution was written to prevent the sort of government that you favour. For example the sort of government where "rights" are not limitations on government power, but are goods and services financed by government (the opposite conception of what a "right" is).

So to get this sort of government you should press for a Constitutional Amendment - or a Constituional Convention.

As for the Constitution being old - basic political ideas are old.

For example, the big government works of Plato (what we call "The Republic" and "The Laws") are thousands of years old.

The war is eternal - the language used in political disputes may change, but the basic divide in politics remains the same.

By the way you are mistaken - Barack Obama has a passionate hatred of the United States Constitution, and of American principles generally. This is hardly unusual in academic circles.

In Barack's case it is only to be expected - after all he was given three hour per day collectivist indoctination sessions by his mother (before he was even old enough to go to school), then sent back to the United States to be mentored (again in his boyhood) by Frank Mashall Davis (a veteran Communist Party member).

Then off to Occidental - where he was a Marxist.

Then on to Columbia - where he regularly attended Marxist conferences.

Then on the Chicago to work with Bill Ayers (who he had already meant in New York) and co for DECADES.

And, of course, active involvement (again for DECADES) in the Liberation Theology "Church" of Rev. Wright.

Of course it is quite possible for someone to have been a Marxist and then change their opinions.

My own father was an active (and violent) Communist - and then turned against the party (I am afraid that people who take politics seriously see it is as more than an "intellectual discussion" just as my father once faught for the C.P. he then faught against it).

However, I see no indication that Barack Obama ever experienced the terrible agony of giving up the Marxist faith - of having his world view totally change. Friends become enemies and enemies become friends.

For example, if Barack had done so, he would have broken with "Dreams From My Father" - a work (whether it was written by Barack of by Bill Ayers - or both) is clearly Marxist - for example the section on Indonesia is classic agitprop.

Works such as "The Manchurian President" or "Deconstructing Obama" or "Radical In Chief" have never recieved any real refutation concerning their basic point - the radically anti American political background of Barack Obama.

If this really was an "intellectual discussion" then such works would be carefully refuted.

Instead the establishment elite (such as the mainstream media) just ignore such works - or deny their conclusions (without dealing with the evidence they present).

AlfredYWong in reply to Paul Marks

I didn't really know much about American constitutional law, so thanks for giving me the options on what to do.

Furthermore, I understand the concept of a constitution as well as one that strives to maintain a limited government, which is a virtue. But having no constitutional justification for government-mandated contraception provision (not that this is the case here in my opinion, but I concede the case due to ignorance of the issue) doesn't remove the good that it does. That's all I'm trying to say: if this law breaks the tenets of the constitution, that's not, in my view, an automatic veto of it; nor does it remove the good of the law in itself.

The main danger of violating a constitutional rule is apparently the snowball effect: that other similar and less palatable laws will be written. But the snowball effect does not guarantee passage, but merely opens that topic for discussion, which is better, in my opinion, than certain regions being barred by a constitution.

Because an institution is owned by the Church does not mean that the Church gets to impose its rules on the people employed there, any more than because Mark Zuckerberg owns and runs Facebook, does he get to get all Facebook employees to eat only what they kill.

I'm fine with the First Amendment, but in this case "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion does not apply, because employees at church-affiliated institutions are not exercising their religion, but providing a service. They may be there because of their religion, and may have the same religion as the Church, but they are there in their capacity as teacher/doctor/nurse/etc. and may very well not share the Church's religion or beliefs. The Church cannot interfere with those employees getting access to contraception, especially since even Catholic women use contraception (94% of all women in the US, including Catholic ones, use contraception; Guttmacher Institute).

In regards to the Fourth Amendment: if the government mandates that Church-owned facilities that don't conflict with their core beliefs, then does that amount to the same "usurpation"? In your example, I don't see how mandating such procedures differs with taxation, since both is apparently illegal seizure of property by the government.

Paul Marks in reply to AlfredYWong

I think there are three issues here.

Is a stature that violates the Constitution void? Yes it is void.

Assuming a statute does not violate the Constitution in terms of the power it takes for government, does it give the Executive branch,the Preident and on down (as opposed to the Legislative branch, the Congress) the right to make laws?

I would agree with the what the Supreme Court ruled in the 1930s (when it voided the National Revovery Administration), whether or not the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutionally took powers for the government, the power to make law (under this "Enabling Act") can not be given to the Executive (as the power to make law is reserved to the legislative branch).

Of course this was denounced as a "horse and carriage" view of law - although why a Louis XIV and Colbert conception of government should be considered more "modern" than a view opposing this conception, was not explained.

Anyway with World War II and so on - the common law view of law (as expressed, for example, by the British Chief Justice Hewart in his work "The New Despotism" of 1929)was dropped. The legal mainstream has made its peace with a Louis XIV and Colbert style government. Although, as the United States Constitution has not been amended to allow this, it remains unconstitutional (legal fashions not withstanding).

However, there is your third (and perhaps most important) point. Assuming away all Constitutional and legal difficulties is a policy of imposing mandates on insurance companies (such as Catholic Mutual) a good thing or not?

I would argue it is a bad thing, as mandates (telling people what they must provide and how they must provide it) and other regulations are one of the two main reasons for the explosion of health care costs over the years (the other main reason are the subsidy programs, which have the same effects on health care costs as the subsidies for higher education, government backed student loans and so on, have on tuition costs).

It was once hoped that the Congress would allow free trade between the States (which it does have the power to do), allowing people to buy health cover in less regulated (and, therefore, less expensive) States without physically moving there.However, the officials (from the President on down) seem determined to go the other way and take the regulations of the worst (most regulated) States and make them national. Indeed if things proceed as they are the national regulations will be vastly worse (over time) than the regulations that already exist in any State.

TwoGunChuck in reply to An All American

An All American,

You are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" and "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are in the DOI. Has nothing to do with the Constitution.

TwoGunChuck in reply to An All American

An All American,


TwoGunChuck in reply to AlfredYWong


You must be a Protestant if you think that performing corporal works of mercy is not exercising one's religion.

My opinion is that if someone does not want to work for a religious institution, bugger off and go work elsewhere. Nobody is twisting their arms and forcing them to work for a Catholic hospital. This of course is an argument that retards like Obama cannot understand.

AlfredYWong in reply to TwoGunChuck

I personally am an atheist, but I was raised Catholic, and my family is Catholic. I understand that performing works of mercy is encouraged by and is a central tenet of the Catholic Church. However, people who do those same works may not be Catholic, and may be performing those works for other reasons. The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on acts of mercy.

In your opinion, those people who work at Catholic institutions who are not Catholic should instead go work for a secular institution. However, the point is not about people who don't want to work for a religious institution, or a Catholic institutions; I'm sure that the people who do work at such places actually want to be there. The point is that if they work there, they shouldn't be deprived of insurance benefits that they would have if they worked somewhere else.

TwoGunChuck in reply to AlfredYWong

That is the whole question -- whether a religious institution that performs corporal works of mercy and employs non-ministerial staff to aid in such works should be required to provide benefits to such non-ministerial staff that conflict with the religious tenets of the institution itself. I say that the power of congress to regulate commerce among the several states (which is what this regulation is based on) is absurdly stretched to require such a thing, in the first place, and that secondly, even if such were deemed a legitimate exercise of the commerce clause, it would still need to survive the usual tests applied to laws that impinge upon the free exercise of religion. I expect that if such a regulation is litigated Obama's retarded justice department will get slapped down again, as it should be.

Your argument "if they work there, they shouldn't be deprived of insurance benefits that they would have if they worked somewhere else" is not a legal argument, it's just a personal opinion, and you are welcome to it.

AlfredYWong in reply to TwoGunChuck

I have little to no constitutional legal knowledge, and so I thank you for teaching me some new points on it. As for my opinion: a lot of things that I believe in, and I'm sure you have other such beliefs, are not reflected in law, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong.

An All American

President Obama has chosen the "right" religion to engage in war. The W.A.S.P voting establishment in the USA will never allow Roman Catholic edicts to stand as law here. The Pope will never rule the USA. Ask President John Kennedy, oh my, someone killed him for being a Catholic didn't they? Yes, Obama knows what side his bread is buttered on.

Peter Miles

Let's see... on one side of the argument, the scientific community asserts that readily available contraception will help society by reducing unwanted pregnancies, which in turn will help reduce abortions, poverty, etc.

On the other side of the argument, the Pope says contraception is bad.

You make the call.

Maybe the administration is just trying to do the right thing? I don't consider "trying to do the right thing" to be an unnecessary fight.

Besides, the argument that it infringes on religious freedom is a stretch. Who does it infringe upon? I would argue, no one. No one is forced to use contraception. It might be argued that for the church (the organization) to have to pay for contraception is an indignity. But in no way does it interfere with any individual person's practice or beliefs.

jaylomo in reply to Peter Miles

Your last point hits the nail on the head. It does not infringe on any personal religious liberty (within the meaning of the constitution) because I am free to speak and act as i wish and the government has the const. right to tax and spend as it wishes (more or less). But the regulations absolutely infringe on the establishment of religion (here the Catholic Church) because it is being forced to pay for sevices that violate its teachings.

AlfredYWong in reply to jaylomo

But it is not churches that have to do so, but church-affiliated institutions including hospitals, schools and universities. In this sense, those institutions are employers first and places of worship second, and employers (under the Affordable Care Act) have to provide health insurance, which policies include providing for contraception, for their employees, as is the right of the employees to have that insurance.

jaylomo in reply to AlfredYWong

I disagree. Religious hospitals, charities, adoption agencies are neither houses of worship nor employers first. They are first and foremost ministries providing services in accordance with their church mission. Ministry and mission are no less church functis than worship. This is how the priests, nuns, misters and laypeple who run, oversee, finance, volunteer and donate time and treasure to see these institutions as.

AlfredYWong in reply to jaylomo

Yes, but there are also people hired by these institutions who may not share the religious beliefs of that institution, and see their job as just a job, and they have the right to the same health care as they would receive at a secular hospital/school/university.

jaylomo in reply to AlfredYWong

That is true, but that just sets the statutory right created by the ACA (and these regs) against the 1st Amendment right of an established church fulifiliing its ministry in accordance with its long established teachings. The ACA and regs create what are otherwise legitimate rights, the issue is that they run up against the 1st Amendment. I would also add that they also go against our cultural and religious traditions since, if upheld, there will now but significant pressure on chuirches to turn inward and be more sectarian by either hiring their "own" or possibly get out of some of these services. We as a nation became very ecumenical in the 20th Century. This is a tradition that the govenrment should not seek to undermine, however unintentionally.

Damn Dirty Ape in reply to jaylomo

It does indeed say in the first amendment that the government should not pass laws which prohibit the free practice of religion. Of course, no right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is absolute. You have freedom of speech but you can be put in jail for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. You have freedom to practice your religion but you can stil be arrested and discriminated against at your job if you consume outlawed peyote in an Indian ceremony. The right to conscientious objection to democratically passed laws is rather limited in the US. You can object to paying taxes but you still have to pay them (individual not institution.) The flip side of this argument is that the USSC just gave a ministerial exception to religous schools that allow them to discriminate against their employees. But even in the language of that discision, they went to special pains to equate teachers with ministers, suggesting that such special exceptions might not apply to non-ministerial workers. On a final note, I would not have picked this fight at this point in the election cycle if I were the president but who knows, maybe he actually has some principles.

McJakome in reply to Peter Miles

It does seriously and negatively impact the Catholic Church's centuries old policy of "Our way or the high way." Of course it used to be, "Our way or the bonfire." Fortunately for us the RCC no longer has much moral authority and insufficient political authority to consign unbelievers to the stake, even in Italy.

splittercrack in reply to jaylomo

So what exactly is a difference between being an employer and a ministry providing a services in accordance with X mission?

Is my friend that works for a Catholic hospital in California affected by all the labor laws of that state? What if the hospital forbids its employees from bringing lunch that includes meat on a certain day of a week?

AlfredYWong in reply to jaylomo

I agree with Damn Dirty Ape, and would add on your point of this law leading to churches "turning inward and be[ing] more sectarian" that in some ways this was inevitable. The social conservative wing of the Republican Party has become more radical and uncompromising on their agenda through the Tea Party, and this would have inevitably led to a conflict between social conservatives & churches and the secular government.

And on the point of America being ecumenical, that perhaps only applies to religions that are considered mainstream, whether Protestant or Catholic. Mormonism and Islam are still viewed today as untrustworthy and, in the case of the latter, dangerous by many right-wing people.

jaylomo in reply to splittercrack

1st "fish on fridays" is not a moral doctrine, but a disciplin of worship. Second, the analogy is inapposite. Assuming it was a moral doctrine (say, like Hinduism-- pardon my ignorance here) I think there might be an issue if the government required a srict Hindu "ministry" to purchase and serve beef absent special circumstances.

Peter Miles, I seem to remember the same "scientific arguments" being used by another Progressive government in Europe to help end social woes. Wouldn't society be so much better if we "disposed" of (retroactively aborted?) our "undesirables"? After all, those [fill in the blank: unemployed, Christians, Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, political opponents] aren't "real" people.

It all works out fine as long as you remain "useful" to the State.

Peter Miles in reply to jaylomo

Free exercise vs. establishment - a very important distinction but not convincing.

The key point is that these are institutions and businesses that serve the larger community and employ people of different faiths on a non-religious basis. This makes them different than religious organizations and therefore should be treated like other non-religious organizations.

jaylomo in reply to Peter Miles

And you are correct that they must comply with the law in general. The problem here is that the regs force these church ministries to either 1) violate their teachings, 2) give up their ministries or 3) turn inward and be more sectarian by hiring and serving mainly their own. Setting aside the 1st amendment issues, that is just bad policy. The American tradition of private charities is long and proud. We should not mess with it.


The Economist has missed the point- I believe. The president made a politically strategic choice to spark this debate. Sure, maybe it is based on principle, but it is a brilliant move. It allows him to talk about the core purspose of this heath care plan and how it benefits individuals. The Republican argument against the president will appeal to religeous conservatives (which won't vote for the Democrats anyway) but will very likely upset the women vote (which is Romney's strength). I may not always agree with him, but he is usually a few steps ahead...

Kerry boy

It's not that Newt mistunderstands the letter and spirit of the first amendment--it's that he understands the prejudice and animosity of the Republican base.

Gary C

One solution would be to allow organizations that object to artificial birth control (including but not limited to the Catholic Church) the option of providing Natural Family Planning (NOT the rhythm method) instead of contraception.

Natural family planning involves the woman monitoring her temperature, bodily fluids and often cervix. It's invasive but it's been shown to be over 98% effective.

If the law continues to require religious organizations to violate the teachings of their faith they will not follow the law. They will fight the law in court and/or pay the fines.

McJakome in reply to Gary C

The problem with this is that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe in any form of contraception, that intercourse MUST be for the purpose of procreation or not be done in such a way as to prevent conception.

Gary C in reply to McJakome

The Catholic Church promotes Natural Family Planning. It's part of marriage prep at most Catholic churches. NFP requires about 10 days of abstinance a month (or about 7 days with cervical monitoring).

Natural Family Planning works. My wife and I have used it for the 16 years we've been married. She only got pregnant the two times we planned to have children. When we decided to have kids and stopped using NFP she was pregnant within two months.

McJakome in reply to Gary C

That is all well and good. If you, the Catholic church or other organizations want to promote it, that is also well and good. And you have my blessing [such as it is].

The problem is that freedom of religion FOR Catholics and the Catholic church, must be reciprocated by freedom FROM Catholic beliefs, rules, requirements and dogma by people who believe otherwise.

This point always gets lost in the general antagonism. Freedom of religion implies freedom from other people's religion, and the problem is that people get riled about infringements on their freedom while doing things that look to other people like infringement of theirs.

What I promote is, "Leave each other alone." Don't promote laws, no matter how much you think God wants them, that other people reject, because they will go as far as necessary to reject those laws. Let's break this cycle.

Gary C in reply to McJakome

Leave each other alone is good. But leaving me alone includes not making me pay for something I believe is immoral. If you don't like the benefits I pay for you can find another employer, just as you can do if you don't like the wages I offer.

Personally I'm willing to pay for many types of birth control although I won't pay for a plan that includes coverage that can terminate a life like the "morning after" pill. If the law says that must be covered, then for moral reasons I won't offer health coverage but pay the fine and pay higher wages.

McJakome in reply to Gary C

I don't want to repeat what I have said twice already. However there is another point that needs to be made. If you have several children and I have none, should I be required to pay for your children's schooling with my taxes. Especially as you could pay to send them to a private [and excellent Catholic] school?

I am not seriously suggesting this as there is a definite public good in having a well educated citizenry. I am just pointing out the increasingly selfish viewpoints on all sides of every issue. If we don't find an accommodation or compromise that is at least acceptable to all sides we could be in for a very rough ride.

I think if everybody got behind a single-payer public health plan it would solve a lot of problems. It would be necessary to offer a secular and a non-secular plan, but I think it could be done if there is good-will on both sides.


For a country that was founded on the notion of religious freedom, the U.S. shows remarkably little patience with it today.

Hamakko in reply to AtlantisKing

AtlantisKing, you are quite correct. Long before I lived in the US, I lived in the UK, which does have an established Church the Church of England). Somewhat perversely, I felt more religiously free in the UK than I do in the US. And there is much less intrusion of religion into government (and vv) in the UK than there is in the US - from my own personal perspective.

McJakome in reply to AtlantisKing

Freedom of religion implies freedom FROM religion, especially freedom from someone imposing their religion. If the Catholic Church will stop trying to impose its dogma on everyone else, I will be happy to leave them to stew in their own medieval beliefs undisturbed.

zu6kVNAYa8 in reply to AtlantisKing

You need to give some examples. It seems to me there's more religious freedom than there is for those who don't practice any religion. It appears the government is always being required to bow to religious preferences of one sort or another, or dictums from the church.


"Catholic institutions are making a principled stand for what they see as the sanctity of life. The administration argues with no less conviction that the well-being of women depends on affordable access to contraception no matter where they work."

You have argued several times that the Administration is doing this "on principle" - probably because many of us see this is just another grubby politicking maneuver emanating from a White House full of stupid ideas. So you have to warn you that is not the case...

Fine, let's buy into your implausible premise. No one is saying that the Administration should not defend "affordable access to contraception" (we could, in principle - but we won't). We're just saying that it crossed the line when it tried to create affordability by forcing Catholics (and the Church) to pay for it.

If it is such a vital "right", the Administration could use general tax dollars to subsidize it. Or even leave it alone - in time people who want these kind of services would gravitate to plans, hospitals and jobs to offer them.

gusz in reply to AtlantisKing

It was doctor's recommendations that it must be provided in health care plans not the white house. The white house was just enforcing what research, statics and empirical data has said that a basic plan needs to providing contraception coverage. Clergy are not doctors so they shouldn't decide medical decisions based on some principle set over two thousands years in the past. If they feel that strongly about it then don't provide healthcare coverage and pay the fine, they have the money. Also I think its funny that most Catholics use contraception but if they are employed by an organization of the faith they follow, they have to pay for it them selves.

Please get out of the middle ages, (touching little boys) = (not good) and (contraception) = (good on many levels determined by evidence).


Here are the characteristics of a cult:
• Small? The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) has 14 million members in 132
countries. In America, there are more Mormons than there are Presbyterians or Jews.
• Excessive devotion? Mormons are devoted to the Savior, but in appropriate measure He would approve of.
• Unethical techniques? Ask the pie-throwers to name one.
• Control by isolation? Even if Mormons wanted to, this would be impossible with 14 million members in 28,000 congregations throughout the
• Control by threats? Again, evidence? Mormon missionaries may be
exuberant, but do not threaten.
• Dependency on the group? The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is just the opposite. Mormons want members to be self-reliant and independent so they in turn can help others.
• Powerful group pressure? Only if that’s the way the critics prefer to define love.
• Strange? Guilty as charged. Mormons plead guilty to all the strange
things that were done by Christians in New Testament times that were lost
during the great falling away in the aptly named Dark Ages, among them temple worship, vicarious baptism for the dead, definition of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as separate but united in purpose, salvation requiring both grace and obedience to commandments, prophets and apostles, unpaid clergy, and continual revelation to guide His Church.

For more information, please go to:

Daisy Daisy in reply to BotBot

If those characteristics define a cult, than every nuclear family unit is, by definition, a cult.

More seriously, all legitimate religions have their origins as cults. The word has taken on a sinister meaning, and so has rendered the original definition meaningless. At any rate, the Mormon religion has certainly grown from its original particular (and even peculiar) cultivation to a throughly established mainstream religion. As opposed to ignoramouses who prefer to bash religions rather than join them, it's a force for stability and goodness.


If you’re not going to nationalize the hospitals, and instead live with a rich variety of providers, you have to make some allowances for the people you’re dealing with. Not finding a way to accommodate the Catholics can be defended in principle, but is a complete failure in terms of practical politics. What could Obama and his advisors have been thinking? Someone should be fired. So now the Priests get to nail themselves to the cross of religious persecution. There is no way Obama can win this one. He should cut his losses and retreat ASAP. There is no battle to be fought. He has already lost.

serban p. in reply to Ohio

Obama may be losing support from this one but it is the Catholic Church that is losing the war and covering itself in ridicule.
Contraception against religious beliefs? Please, most Catholics ignore that injunction and this is a way for bishops to try to impose it on a captive population (their employees). In practical terms the amount of contraception will remain the same, it is just that their employees will have to pay for it instead of the Church paying a fine if on principle they refuse to provide it.


I think Lexington's last paragraph, while perhaps seeming political, does make a good point - many who claim to be fighting for the constitution's protections of religious liberty are only concerned about their liberty, and will sometimes be simultaneously against any incursion on their spiritual life and vociferously for intrusion into the religious lives of others. How many fighting this decision were people who were against the Manhattan (or 'ground zero') mosque?

What I do take issue with in this article is the implication that the Obama administration is forcing this issue as some kind of culture-war proxy; there is no way that this administration would be doing this as anything other than a clumsy blunder, it has not ever shown such things to be of interest to the White house. At some points what you seem to be saying is that the administration needs to be extra careful just because a load of cynics and lunatics want to portray Obama as a crusader - and I use that word purposefully - against religion.

You seem to suggest that there has to be a solution to this that will please both sides of the argument without venturing to suggest a way towards that. It comes down to the right to employees who aren;t catholics to receive free contraception like other citizens vs. the right of Catholic organisations to not have to help fund practices which go against the teachings of their church. How do you reconcile the two?

CaesarPopulist in reply to ow4744

Very good point. The Obama administration will most certainly come up with a waiver system that satisfies both rights--in fact they are working on it as we speak. Would a fierce culture warrior who is fighting a "war against religion" cave so easily? I don't think so.

jaylomo in reply to ow4744

To your last question, i think the answer is simple. The right to contraception coverage is a statutory right created by the ADA. the right of an establishment of religion to not be forced to pay for services that violate its well established teachings is a 1st amendment right.

Daisy Daisy

Obama is not a Christian. Nor is he a Muslim (although that's the only formal religion he's ever been exposed to via his step-father in Indonesia). He is a Marxist. Obama is a dedicated follower of Black Liberation Theology as preached/ranted by "Rev." Wright at Trinity "Church". Obama faithfully attended Trinity for over 20 years. He was married there and had his children formally 'baptized' into Black Liberation Theology. Marxism is his religion.

Black Liberation Theology, as anyone even slightly interested can easily find out, practices the tenets of Marxism.

The Economist would do well to note that the First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits government interference into organized religions. Here in the USA we call that freedom of religion. Obama is violating our Constitution.

Back in Briton you have no real separation of church and state. Which is unfortunate because as a result of that merger, you now have no church, only a sterile of morality secular state. Practicing Americans prefer freedom of religious practice to Big Government as Church.

Daisy Daisy in reply to Frank O

Strictly speaking, neither is Black Liberation Theology. Nevertheless, Black Liberation Theology is what's preached and practiced at Trinity Church. And the fundamentalist roots of the 'theology' are Marxist. Hence, Obama's religion.

It's reality. Now stop your pretentious stuttering and deal with it.

Bfordc in reply to Daisy Daisy

The argument of whether or not Obama is a Christian is irrelevant and impossible to answer definitively. Only God knows the heart of a man. Others, such as Daisy Daisy, just think they do.

McJakome in reply to Daisy Daisy

Wow! Talk about dogmatism and, BTW logical fallacy, in support of a totalitarian ideology! There is a pope on record condemning the US, democracy and republicanism. I don't believe we have yet received an apology.

I left the RCC for good and sufficient reason [including exposure as a child to one "father" Porter, a priest from hell]. I am now proudly Protestant, and will protest, if necessary by nailing condemnations on the doors of churches, the imposition of medieval Catholic ideology through the power of the state on non-Catholics like myself.

Who are you to proclaim the religious beliefs of Pres. Obama or anyone else? Before I acquiesce in a reign of the Inquisition in the US I will take up arms. The RCC has absolutely no right, moral or otherwise, to impose its dogma on anyone!

Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. have equal rights in this secular republic. If the RCC continues to interfere in the governance of the US and tries to impose its beliefs it should lose its tax exemption and its clerics up to cardinal should be investigated, charged and punished for any and all crimes committed.

Daisy Daisy in reply to zu6kVNAYa8

Of course I know what his religious beliefs are, and they are not Christian. Trinity Church's dogma, Marxist Black Liberation Theology, is a readily accessible matter of public record.

Your commentary is drivel and shall be ignored as such.

Paul Marks in reply to Daisy Daisy

All true Daisy Daisy. Espcially about Comrade Barack - Lexington knows that as well as you do (but like the rest of the msm, truth is not exactly his lodestar - indeed he sees his role as being covering up the truth so that the "Progressive" cause may proceed)

Nor does the establishment of religion (and centuries of tradition) protect Christianity in Britain anyway.

For example, Paliament (like Congress) starts its proceedings with prayers (none of the Founders believed that the First Amendment was about keeping relgion out of government, they thought it was about stopping the Feds playing favourates with any particular Chuch, but do not tell Lex that....). However, local councils are not going to be forbidden to so so - there was a court judgement only yesterday (against a town that had been starting its proceedings with a prayer since at least the 16th century).

"Well Paul you should be against compulsory prayers - after all you are a libertarian".

The prayers were not compulsory (no one need to say anything - and athiest council members made a point of making that obvious, and they was fine).

But even if I did support the banning of all religion in public life I would still not support the British situation.

For example again only yesterday a the old husband and wife owners of a little guest house lost an appeal against a court judgement that will cripple them.

What was their terrible action? Not giving a Gay couple a double room

The husband and wife guest house owners were not national or local govenrment - they are a private couple (not a government) yet there is no protection for their religious beliefs in Britain.

That is the sort of "anti discrimination" doctrine that people like Lexington would also support in an American context (as would the "Progressives" who were born in the United States).

"Anti discrimination" sounds wonderful (I hate bigots to - and I belong to several groups in the population that other people are bigoted against) - till one remembers that to "discriminate" means to "choose" and taking that right away means no choice.

And if that means that (for various reasons) people "discriminate against" (i.e. will not do business with) Paul Marks - well that is what freedom is about (freedom is not an entirely fluffy concept, I should not be be able to FORCE other people to sell me goods or services if they do not wish to do so, I can go to someone else if the first seller really will not sell to me).

If freedom does not include the freedom NOT to associate then it is not freedom.


It is well established Supreme Court jurisprudence that the US Constitution guarantees women the fundamental right to determine when and if they want to have children by use of contraceptives. All this regulation does is not make a special exemption to deny that right for the Catholic Church, which employs hundreds of thousands of persons in hospitals and universities who perform functions wholly unrelated to the furtherance of Catholic teachings. A huge number of these individuals likely are not Catholic, or even Christian. And again, it doesn't require the Church or its members to affirmatively do a single thing that violates its tenets: it merely prevents them from denying one of its employees from exercising her individual right to a specific form of medication the Church happens to oppose (foolishly, but that's for another discussion).

All of these bishops with their jeremiads of Obama running roughshod over their religious freedoms are wholly disingenuous. They are nothing more than politicians with tax-exempt status and undue influence over public policy. I don't think a group of older men more interested in protecting their own assets than stopping pedophilia within their ranks are entitled to the outrage they now express.

On the ground level, the Catholic Church does immeasurable good in the US and around the world. Many of its nuns, priests, and lay members feed and shelter the poor, care for the sick, and provide a first-rate education (both parochial and secular) to children and adolescents. They also show great compassion and respect for others who harbor views they may disagree with. The Church's all male Board of Directors - oops, I mean council of bishops - might want to take note.

RafaNY in reply to Daisy Daisy

What are you talking about Daisy^2? You might be drinking too much moonshine with your morning coffee. What about the rights of people who work for a Catholic-affiliated institution that DO believe in the use of contraceptives?

jaylomo in reply to rsnyc1337

I think your confusing the issues. The Supreme Court has ruled that constitution prohibits states from outlawing contraception. It has not ruled that people are entitled to contraception. There is no constitutional right to be provided contrception coverage by an employer. The issue here is mandating an establishment of religion to provide a service that clearly violates several of its long established teachings.

Daisy Daisy in reply to RafaNY


Let them buy their own contraceptives.

Incidentally, no one has a 'right' to have someone else provide their health care. Nor does anyone have an intrinsic right to health care.

Paul Marks in reply to rsnyc1337

I am not a Roman Catholic.

And I totally oppose any State banning contraceptives.

However, the Supreme Court does not have any Amending power to the Constitution.

Constitutional Amendments are made by the Congress and the States (unless a Convention is called - then Congress may be by-passed).

The Supreme Court can no more create a right to contraceptives than it can declare that the United States Senate should no longer exist, or that New Hampshire be carpet-bombed.

If you wish to argue that a State has no legal right to ban contraceptives you must show that in the text of the Constitution, or (if the wording is unclear) in the intentions of those who wrote it.

Saying "the Supreme Court said so" will not do.

As a Justice on the Court at the time said "this is a remarkably silly law [the ban on cntraceptives], but it has got nothing to with us".

Sadly the majority of the Supreme Court decided (as they so often do) to ignore the United States Constitution and play legislator-from-the-bench.


The last paragraph makes the article sounds like an exercise in moral equivalence. No matter what present US administration does Republican are Sooo Evil.


The issue is not whether individual catholics will be forced to violate their respective conscience (most have no issue with contraception-many no issue with legal abortion). The problem is that these regs will force an establishment of religion like the Catholic Chuch to pay for a specific service that will cause it to clearly violate more than one of its well established teachings. As Lexingtopn points out, this does not have to be the case and the Admistration could easily regulate a way around this. (And, Euphrax is right on to point out the problems with employer based insurance)
Further, this is not the same as marriage. While law will only "recognize" one wife, there is nothing prohibiting a Muslim man to take as many "wives" as he wants within the meaning of Islam. I'm not aware of any Islamic teaching that marriage requires the recognition of the secular authorities to be a true marriage.
Finally, do we really want to put religious institutions in the position of having to choose between capitulating to secular culture and turning inward and becoming more sectarian? Do we want a pluralist religous culture or do we want to force chuches into cultural ghettos? Is the administration trying to gode Catholic institutions into serving and hiring only (or predominantly) Catholics in order to be exempt from the regs, or is it just turning the screws on the Chuch since they think it larger mission makes it unlikely to do that?

McJakome in reply to jaylomo

I [an ex-Catholic] for one want it made clear to the Catholic Church and others that their constant attempts to impose their dogma on others is unacceptable, and if they want to retain their status they must refrain from political interference.

jaylomo in reply to McJakome

The Church is not imposoing its dogma's on others here. This is an issue of forcing the church to violate its own dogmas. Why is it considers "political interference" to speak out and challenge a law that directly affects the minitries the Church is engaged in? Are you saying that because an institution is a church it must give up its voice on issues that affect its pocket book and works?

McJakome in reply to jaylomo

If the church succeeds in limiting or preventing birth control or abortion through political meddling then it is negatively affecting the rights of people who do not believe in its doctrines. By doing so it violates the separation of church and state while hiding behind that separation to avoid state control and payment of taxes. Had I the power I would make them choose, give up the meddling or lose the privileges.

Then there is the interference in the immigration issue. The church condones and promotes lawbreaking, and a certain cardinal should be investigated and forced to appear before a grand jury for it.

Cardinal Law [Lawless would be a more appropriate name] protected child molesting priests, and moved them around, thus giving them more opportunity to prey on children. He should be in a Boston jail not in a cushy curia job.

If the depredations of this Italian criminal association had ceased in the past, I would not have any issues with it. However they continue to this day and I see no reason why it should be allowed to interfere in the administration of US laws nor to promote restricting the civil rights of US citizens.

jaylomo in reply to McJakome

Contraception and abortion are not dogmas they are moral positions taken by the church for various reasons, but mainly on natural law grounds. Lots of non catholics and non christians oppose abortion. However, the Church is not looking to prohibit or limit contraception in any general sense here. it is merely fighting requirement that it provided what its long established moral teachings condemn. The "imposing" is coming from the govenrment in this instance. Regarding abortion, no amount of "political meddling" will end abortion until we as a country accpet the appointment of judges to allow for prohibition and then elect 50 state legislatures to prohibit it. The bishops, clergy and faithful have no such power on their own, but have the absolute right to advocate for this.

k. a. gardner commentary

This was a great column by Lexington until the unfortunate last paragraph. It would be naive of me to expect his mentioned compromise to stifle all of Lexington's complaints.

Rick Perry "wailing about gays serving openly in the armed forces" has nothing to do with this issue. It is baffling to me why Newt Gingrich's confusion is even mentioned at all. But I know these opportunities are just too tempting for Lexington to pass up.

Please try to remember that "a better question than which principle takes precedence is whether Mr Obama could have avoided the collision altogether by taking evasive action. He could and should have."

Public Dude

The Catholic Church persecuted Galileo and Copernicus for being right. It is surprising that the Church no longer insists that the Earth is still the center of the universe. Now it is crying foul over providing services its indirect employees (not church workers but those working for Catholic hospitals, universities etc.) want as evident from some 98% of their female employees that have spoken in its favor.
Whether the Obamacare Act is legal or not (the Supreme Court is weighing on this), to have two different healthcare coverage standards would create two classes of employees. The Republicans chastise Obama on class warfare. Now, they are guilty of the same crime. Regardless of their personal beliefs, they see an opportunity to grandstand an issue to curry voter’s favors come November.
Religion and politics as usual.

Vive_chimie in reply to Public Dude

If you look at a short history of Copernicus' life and work, for example in Wikipedia, you won't find anything about him being persecuted. He didn't publish his ideas widely, "not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn 'to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses.'"

Not that I want to be thought of as supporting the Catholic Church, but let's not accuse it of doing things that it didn't in fact do.

Peter Miles in reply to Vive_chimie

Galileo was persecuted for promoting Copernicus' theories. One could speculate that Copernicus self-censored his ideas because they ran counter to the all-powerful church dogma.

Regardless, there is a parallel. On one side we have the scientific community and on the other church dogma. Society would benefit if the church would enter the 21st century. Even the 20th would be an improvement.

Vive_chimie in reply to Peter Miles

Peter Miles, I agree with everything that you wrote, with the possible exception of "speculate"; I think that it's clear that he did censor himself.

I entirely agree that progress comes from science, to the extent of believing that religion is the expression of man's residual ignorance (not that I'm the first to say that, of course).
I just wanted to point out that while Galileo was indeed persecuted, Copernicus, in an earlier age, was not.


Now for GOD's sake, get the American employers out of the business of providing their workers with health care.

If citzens bought their own individual cover / plan in a regulated market, this would be one more problem that could be avoided.

Imagine the stupidity if we mandate employers provide other key necessities, say housing and food. How perfect would that be... Then the unemployed, entrepreneuers and freelancers could go hungry and homeless in addition to being without healthcare.

Republicans claim to be for freedom and choice. One would think that consumer choice would be something they could get behind. Not to mention the burden that employer mandated weighs on their business friends further reducing international competitiveness...

Where is the leadership? Where is the imagination?

Blocked by block-headed partisan dogma as usual.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The Economist explains: The meaning of Manhattanhenge
The Economist explains 1 hrs 13 mins ago
Alibaba's IPO: Shocked, shocked!
Schumpeter July 13th, 18:10
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail July 12th, 19:03
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00


Products and events



