"You shall neither wrong a stranger, nor oppress him: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." --Exodus 22:21
Through the ages, the above verse has served as a guiding Jewish principle. This call for enhanced sensitivity to oppressed minorities placed Jews at the forefront of a variety of noble struggles, particularly in the United States. As noted by author Charles Silberman, "American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups."
It is precisely for this reason that all Jews should link arms in battle together with this country's Catholics over President Obama's mandate to provide cover for contraception in health care plans provided by the Church.
Of course the contraception issue is a contentious one, from a Jewish perspective; it is certainly not a black and white issue. According to a Public Religion Research Institute Poll, even 52 percent of Catholics are of the opinion that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide contraception coverage. What is clearly at stake here however, is far beyond the popularity of, or one's beliefs regarding, one's life choices. It is our collective tolerance for governmental forays into the realm of religious practice.
Without doubt, each individual has the right to decide on the path best suited for them. Likewise each religious institution has the right to define its moral positions. The State has no business compelling the Church to compromise on its standards.
It is true that the president tweaked the policy "to require religious employers such as universities and charities to cover contraception in employee health plans, but shifted the responsibility for paying for it away from the employer and on to its health-insurance provider," according to the Wall Street Journal.
However, quite rightly, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops decided to oppose the compromise, saying they still had "serious moral concerns." Namely that the President's plan still obligates them to provide coverage for a health care practice that is against their religious principles.
As Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami said, "A legislative remedy to this overreaching and unprecedented incursion of state power into the domain of religious freedom and the rights of conscience is still necessary."
In recent months Jews were reminded of just how historically unique the American freedoms we enjoy are, when California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill in October preventing the ban on the practice of male circumcision. The effort was first "struck down in late July by a California judge who said it would infringe on religious freedom," according to Reuters.
Around the world, efforts that would curtail the Jewish practice of shechitah (humane slaughter of animals) have also gathered momentum.
The famous statement commonly attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller comes to mind: "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
As "strangers in the land of Egypt" Jews know well the pitfalls posed in opening the door of this legislation. Few have benefited so wholesomely through basking in the saving grace of the first amendment. It is thus our duty to fight for the preservation of its purist principles as we have done for so many of history's most just causes.
The author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com. Please visit www.algemeiner.com for more information.
Follow Dovid Efune on Twitter: www.twitter.com/efune
Michael Kieschnick: A Father's Perspective on the Contraception War
President Obama has already exempted churches. As for large non-church Catholic institutions, the President has also accomodated them so they need not pay a cent for the bc coverage (its actually cheaper for the insurance coverage than pregnancy) or be involved in offering the coverage. The Nuns love the accomodation and so do most of the large Catholic institutions. Only Rome and Republican opportunists object, and we bow to neither in this free country. I know that is not what Faux News is telling you.
I expect from your position, if a large Catholic business was then sold to the Christian Scientists, thousands of employees should not be covered for blood transfusions etc. And if it was then sold to Muslims, the thousands of employees still working there then have their health coverage dictated by Sharia.
American women will not allow their basic health care coverage to be governed by someone else's religion nor destroyed by the Republicans no matter how much Hannity kicks and screams.
Some equate the current law with making a Jewish deli serve pork... and making all the patrons eat it. This is ridiculous. No one is making anyone serve or eat pork. Patrons of the deli can choose from the menu, or get there pork elsewhere. Employees often do not have that choice.
What if the government supported universal electrification of the country, providing funds to accomplish the goal, but was opposed by a private utility who in their faith believed that there should be no electricity used on their Sabbath. Could the utility deny providing electricity every Saturday to preserve their religious conscience, even if their customers did not ascribe to their faith? The utility could choose to not take any Federal funds and preserve their conscience, but they can't have it both ways.
The Bill of Rights provides for the freedom of religion, with law either establishing a state religion, or infringing upon (targeting) one. It also protects us FROM religion.
A religious institution deserves it's right to pursue it's beliefs. So does the individual, who's conscience and autonomy must be protected.
(If health insurance policies resided with the individual, not the institution or corporation, the question would be moot. Single payer anyone?)
Remember, "We the People".
No one is trying to make catholics use birth control; we are saying that they can't offer sub-standard health insurance to 21st century women.
hmmm.
hariaum
That's what the blogger wants.
"However, quite rightly, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops decided to oppose the compromise,"
No. They originally claimed that they should not be forced to pay for it. The compromised allowed their employees to receive contraception (which they want) and allowed the church to not have to pay for it.
The was a good and decent compromise. In rejecting it, the church has shifted from "we won't pay for it" to "we don't want anyone to have it, even if we don't have to pay for it."
I don't want the government to be dictating to religion, but I REALLY don't want religion dictating to the government. The Catholic church is wrong in opposing the compromise and I would strongly discourage jews or any other faith from supporting them.
This turn towards theocracy that is being pushed so hard by religious conservatives is quite concerning. You are anti-birth control? Don't use it.
These conservatives like to rant against what they see as "big government" and "nanny state" policies, yet they feel a need to madate the personal behavior of others through government. Such amazing hypocracy.
As I understand it, orthodox Islam leans in the same direction but isn't as strict. Permanent methods of birth control (vasectomy, tubal ligations) are prohibited but non-permanent methods are ok. (and coitus iterruptus was specifically permitted in hadith).