Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
That is the opening text of the first amendment.
The Supreme Court, in its most recent decision Hosanna-Tabor, decided that the freedom of religion extended to hiring and firing practices of a faith. Or, as it was summarized by Archbishop Timthoy Dolan in a press release yesterday.
...in its Hosanna-Tabor decision upholding the right of churches to make ministerial hiring decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically reaffirmed these longstanding and foundational principles of religious freedom. The court made clear that they include the right of religious institutions to control their internal affairs.
However, to look at recent decisions by the Obama administration, the President and the Supreme Court are veering in two different directions.
"It has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the common good—including Catholic schools, charities and hospitals—from its sweeping new health-care mandate that requires employers to purchase contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization coverage for their employees," says Dolan.
And Dolan is so not happy about it. Neither are a lot of religious groups and peoples, all of whom are taking a stand to a "requirement that religious institutions and individuals violate their own basic moral teaching."
"Congress shall make no law ..." The Obama healthcare plan was passed by congress, wasn't it? One suspects this is what Pelosi meant when we would know what was in it when it was passed.
How many faiths are annoyed at this new law? All of them, it seems ... except for the anti-theists, who think that sticking it to any religion is a cause for celebration. And it is not a political standpoint -- even the most liberal Catholics are annoyed at this position.
And, as Dolan noted about those objecting to this new law,
Certainly many of these good people and groups were Catholic, but many were Americans of other faiths, or no faith at all, who recognize that their beliefs could be next on the block. They also recognize that the cleverest way for the government to erode the broader principle of religious freedom is to target unpopular beliefs first.
Seriously, what does come next? Marriage has been a hot topic lately. Anything with sex is a good opportunity. Dietary regulations also seem to be up for grabs.
After months of protest (or, as the 1st amendment would say, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances"), the administration was gracious enough to allow a one year delay on enforcement for churches. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that this was a way for "balanced approach" between religious beliefs and the administrations desires; "as if we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now," Dolan says.
A balanced approach? That would require taking the other person's opinion into a point of view.
So, object and protest all you like, as long as you cover contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization services.
However, there is a way for a religious institution to be completely exempt. Seriously -- they would have to stop serving everyone. The particular exemption applis "only to religious organizations engaged primarily in serving people of the same religion."
As Larry Snyder, Catholic Charities president in the United States, "even Jesus and His disciples would not qualify for the exemption in that case, because they were committed to serve those of other faiths."
So, that would mean that every Catholic soup kitchen would have to confirm everyone's faith at the door? Would every Catholic hospice and hospital have to turn away anyone who can't find their baptismal certificate? Would St. John's University, one of the larger colleges in New York City, have to expell half their student body, because they are not Catholic? Perhaps they would be mandated to fire the Rabbis on staff as well?
As Dolan put it,
The Catholic Church defends religious liberty, including freedom of conscience, for everyone. The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.
This will be an interesting Supreme Court case. Constitutional lawyers have already started prep work for this battle. And considering that Hosanna-Tabor was a unanimous SCOTUS decision, the Obama administration might be in for a surprise.
Comments