iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Fr. Peter-Michael Preble

GET UPDATES FROM Fr. Peter-Michael Preble
 

Religious Freedom Under Attack

Posted: 01/23/2012 2:58 pm

America has a very long tradition of freedom. We cherish these freedoms like, the freedom of speech, freedom of religion and until recently, freedom of choice. I will admit right up front that I voted for President Obama because, like many, I believed we needed change. Well I now feel I was duped and his brand of change is not what America needs at all.

As an Orthodox priest and an American I believe in traditional family values like marriage, family, saving one's self for that person we plan to spend the rest of our life with -- in other words I believe in Christian values as proscribed not only by my Church's tradition but by Holy Scripture itself.

On Jan. 20th it was announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that the religious exemption on certain parts of the health care plan would not continue and now religious organizations, like the church, would have to supply health insurance that provides coverage for contraception and abortion. The Roman Catholic Church has been carrying most of the water on this fight and as usual our Orthodox Bishops are silent on this. We have an opportunity here to make our voice heard but we are more concerned with territory and language than we are with issues that affect real people! It is time for our bishops to wake up and speak out. Our people are confused and need to hear their voices loud and clear.

Called the "contraception mandate" it requires private insurance to provide access, at no out-of-pocket expense, to contraceptive drugs such as RU 486. Under this plan, people with heart disease, cancer, diabetes or other health issues will continue to pay or co-pay for their prescription drugs, but people who wish to purchase contraceptive drugs will have no out-of-pocket expense.

I have no issue with the choices you make, you make those choices and you have to deal with consequences but this plan will in effect force me to pay for behavior that my religion calls unacceptable. There has always been an exemption for religious organizations for issues such as these. Prior to this ruling for example the insurance that the Roman Catholic Church offered to her employees did not have to cover abortion or contraception -- now that will not be the case. The government of the United States is forcing us to violate our conscience and that is unacceptable. The Obama administration's witch hunt against religion needs to stop!

I am a firm believer that in a country as wealthy as ours, something needs to be done about the out of control cost of health care. To live in a country that develops a majority of the procedures and medications that save lives but at the same time are out of reach of a majority of American is unconscionable. But I am not willing to trade my religious freedom either. There is no Constitutional right to health care but there is a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President of the United States Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops, said at a recent press conference held on this topic, "Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience." He continued, "This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights."

Roman Catholics are not the only ones speaking out on this issue. In December the National Association of Evangelicals sent a letter to President Obama expressing their dissatisfaction with this mandate; "the Federal government is obligated by the First Amendment to accommodate the religious convictions of faith-based organizations of all kinds."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice that the 1st Amendment starts with the freedom of religion. The framers of the Constitution placed this first even before freedom of speech, press, or assembly of the people! Religion was protected first, until the Obama Administration decided to throw it out the window and attack.

This is a direct attack on religious freedom in American and the start of a slippery slope to more regulations attacking the faith of Americans. In recent years it has become totally acceptable to attack religion and if we, the religious people in America, do not stand up and make our voice heard, including the Orthodox Bishops in America, we will see our rights eroded away. This is only the start of a change in America that I cannot accept.

 

Follow Fr. Peter-Michael Preble on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frpeterpreble

 
 
  • Comments
  • 181
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rudman44
My Son is My Legacy
11:59 AM on 02/08/2012
When will people see that they are being "PLAYED"? The GOP is making back room deals with the RCC to siphon off the votes of the undecided. The GOP knows that there are 26% of the voters are Catholic and majority are female. When will old white men stop interferring in the lives of women?
Even the old dudes who wrote the Constitution did not even consider the woman in their era as equal as they had to create an amendmet to authenicate that their momma's and sisters were human. All the Obama administration says is that IF a patient wants contaceptives, they cannot be discriminated against. Period ! Talk about beliefs,,,, The RCC comandments states "Make NO graven images nor likeness of ME" but how many statues and images have you seen today??
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:38 AM on 01/31/2012
Complicated.

The assumption that the government has the right to require the purchase of health insurance is legally iffy, but if that passes the Constitutional challenge, then businesses with religious owners have to behave like all other employers and offer that insurance.

"Must Catholic hospitals, to be true to their identity, now turn away people of other faiths from their emergency rooms and fire non-Catholic employees? Currently, Catholic hospitals serve one out of six people who seek hospital care in our country. Must Catholic Charities hire and serve only Catholics in its food pantries and other social service agencies? Until today, you didn’t need a baptismal certificate for soup."

http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/10237

I think the answer is yes. Catholic hospitals, being a non-profit business with Catholic ownership and non Catholic employees, must comply like all for-profit businesses.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tholin
09:17 PM on 01/25/2012
" There is no Constitutional right to health care but there is a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion."

For those words to come from an official of the Church is, to my mind, striking in it's immoral antecedents; a grotesque outcome of the medieval metaphysics of "souls".
06:50 PM on 01/27/2012
Oh for goodness sake. Its a quite simple statement about the Constitution. He makes no judgement about whether there is moral right to healthcare, or whether the government should provide healthcare - or not. He doesn't even say "there shouldn't be a Constitutional right to healthcare" (We could create one, you know. The Constitution can be amended). He just states that, as currently written, the Constitution specifically protects free exercise of religion, but is silent on healthcare, and that (by implication) a right not yet in the Constitution should not be used to specifically undermine one that is explicitly stated in the Constitution!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Grada3784
Dogmatic Dictators, believers or not, not welcome
06:57 PM on 01/25/2012
As long as people interact, no freedom will ever be absolute, since they rights of one will ALWAYS butt against another. Personally, I would love to never have to deal with the crop of christians I have dealt with, since I don't enjoy the filthy invective that they cover me with as a gay man. Since I pretty much am drowning in christians, all I can do is to try to avoid people altogether.

That's really some love of neighbor the christians on my acquaintance have got there. It's just unfortunate that i can't differentiate it from hatred.

For your enjoment here's a link about political moralists talking about gays:

http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/01/porno-petes-bff-gay-men-shove-gerbils.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrsLiv
04:44 PM on 01/25/2012
No one is making people employed by religious organizations buy birth control. If you're so afraid that your parishioners will rush out to get on the pill, I guess that's the church's problem that not even its followers buy into your ancient thinking.
11:48 AM on 01/26/2012
You're missing the point. If you want to use contraception, that's totally your business, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, NOT ME. And that's exactly what this mandate does--it requires employers to flip part of the bill for the health choices of their employees. Let's turn the table for a moment. How would you feel if a hypothetical conservative government mandated that employers subsidize the educational expenses of its employees, some of whom inevitably will send their kids to private schools that teach things you don't like (pick your heresy--racism, sexism, Catholicism, patriotism--it doesn't matter). But you object: "Why should I as an employer have to flip part of the bill so that my employees can send their children to schools that teach material I find objectionable?" The government responds, "Education is a fundamental human right, and parents have a fundamental right to choose the kind of education their children will receive." Of course, this is all hypothetical, but I think it is a valid analogy. The bottom line is that the government has no business mandating that employers flip the bill for lifestyle choices their employees make.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrsLiv
03:29 PM on 01/26/2012
There are states that allow citizens to get vouchers for private schools instead of sending their kids to public schools. I think it's important that the state subsidizes education for its children, and I have no problem with it. Since there is not a public option regarding insurance, we need to have standards of coverage that insurance companies abide by. In a country where we pay taxes, I already pay for things I don't necessarily agree with. Taxes go to support the campaigns of politicians I don't like. Birth control is very important for women. I am a healthy person with no weight problems, but the money I pay to my insurance company covers people who have smoked or drank or binged on junk food, and people who don't exercise. I think the saying "no man is an island" applies here. No one pays for just himself.
02:08 PM on 01/25/2012
You're freedom ends where other's begin. You have the right to practice your religion so long as it does violates the rights or welfare of others. Denying women basic access to birth control and jeopardizing their health is not a part of freedom of religion.
11:53 AM on 01/26/2012
Your argument contains a non sequitur and a straw man. No one is trying to deny anyone access to birth control. What people like Fr. Preble are saying is that if you want to use birth control, pay for it yourself. Don't ask me to pay for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nlightenup
Retired psychologist, responds to open minds.
12:49 PM on 01/25/2012
Due respect, Fr. Preble, but how about working to restore the exemption to once again permit religious organizations to act according to their beliefs, rather than jump ship altogether? You value freedom of choice. You must know that Republicans have wrought havoc, and will do more, to erode Constitutional liberties, yes?
08:13 PM on 01/25/2012
I would agree
07:47 PM on 02/02/2012
Rule #1 Blame Bush
Rule #2 See Rule Number One
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nogods
12:46 PM on 01/25/2012
Its about health insurance, not theological health insurance run by the superstition business.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:22 PM on 01/25/2012
the writer has missed the point, the ruling has nothing to do with Religion or the RCC

it is about rules for Insurance companies, get it right

if you don't like contraceptives personally, don't buy any, isn't freedom of Religion nice?

if you don't like insurance that is required to pay for it if others want it, don't buy any, isn't freedom of Religion nice?
01:35 PM on 01/25/2012
Well said, P3.
12:02 PM on 01/25/2012
It is kind of hard to get at exactly what the violation of religion is. Certainly there is no violation of anything one finds in the Bible. Nobody is preventing Preble from getting married having a family or saving himself for marriage. Of course were he a Catholic his church would be preventing him or requiring him to get a different job.

It is true that his insurance will pay for contraception which would allow him to decrease the risk of having a child if he did not save himself for marriage. But that does not force him to violate his principles.

The case he is making here then is that somehow being in the same insurance group with people who will choose differently than him makes him responsible for their choices and so violates his religious convictions. That is a very strange argument which would allow all kinds of limitation on freedom if taken seriously. If Preble took Jesus' actual preaching more seriously and became a pacifist, would paying taxes violate his religious freedom?

It looks more like Preble is cheapening the idea of limitations on religious freedom. Trying to stop a community center from being built because it is Muslim is a real limitation on religious freedom. This seems to be trying to give more wait to a difference in policy by pretending it is a limitation on religious freedom.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JayBachand
Atheist, artist, and dad.
11:10 AM on 01/25/2012
I think I'm done with the Huffington Post. After four years of readership and participation, I just can't take this journal seriously as a progressive institution. Where once there was journalistic integrity, there is sensationalist schlock. Where once intellectualism and reason were favored, now I find articles proclaiming the miracle of 'angels' and the power of faith healing. This is madness. These are the kinds of pandering perspectives I'd expect to find on Fox and Friends. It saddens me, but I will no longer be looking to the HP for my daily news digest.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:46 AM on 01/25/2012
"The Obama administration's witch hunt against religion needs to stop!"

I'm trying to make the conections:
Your Orthodox brothers were recently videoed bashing each other with brooms.
Witches are sometimes associated with brooms.
You think Obama's after you.
So, Obama's on "witch hunt".

Got it!
09:45 AM on 01/25/2012
No taxation, no representation.
photo
JohnFromCensornati
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
09:40 AM on 01/25/2012
"Under this plan, people with heart disease, cancer, diabetes or other health issues will continue to pay or co-pay for their prescription drugs, but people who wish to purchase contraceptive drugs will have no out-of-pocket expense."

How is this relevant? Does Jesus allow contraception if there's a copay?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:08 AM on 01/25/2012
"Does Jesus allow contracept­ion if there's a copay?"

I don't think that biblical character ever said anything about contracept­ion. It's the RCC, the Orthodox, and some of the fundagelicals that have a problem with it.
You know ... the ones that are always pointing their fingers at each other, saying "We're not like them!".
photo
JohnFromCensornati
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
09:38 AM on 01/25/2012
Houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will *still* be exempt according to Sebelius.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:39 AM on 01/25/2012
Only until she changes her mind.
photo
JohnFromCensornati
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
10:59 AM on 01/25/2012
So she's like the RCC? Eating meat on Friday was bad until it wasn't.
08:14 PM on 01/25/2012
Only for another year
photo
goatini
We are two-legged wombs, that’s all
04:18 PM on 01/31/2012
Not if I can help it