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
Rev. Richard Cizik

GET UPDATES FROM Rev. Richard Cizik
 

What War on Religion?

Posted: 03/ 9/2012 10:30 am

The fierce backlash from some evangelical Christian leaders to President Obama's sensible decision to cover contraception services under the health care reform law brings to mind Groucho Marx's definition of politics: "The art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies."

Christian mega-pastor Rick Warren is willing to engage in civil disobedience. The National Association of Evangelicals is reportedly considering asking pastors of every evangelical denomination to read an open letter to their congregations calling the requirement to make birth control for women available without co-pays an attack on religious liberty -- despite an exemption for religious institutions affiliated with faiths that forbid contraception. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, insists there is "no compromise."

As an evangelical leader, I've been involved in defending religious freedom for three decades. Compromise is not always a moral failure in a pluralistic society. In an election year, we must also distinguish between real attacks on faith and cheap demagoguery to score political points. GOP presidential candidates who have been assailing President Obama's supposed "war on religion" should be ashamed of themselves. This irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric makes a mockery of the victims of real wars and unconscionable religious persecution around the world.

The fact is the Obama administration listened to concerns raised in response to an initial ruling that exempted houses of worship but not religious hospitals, schools or social service providers to the new contraception coverage rule, and crafted a common-ground solution that protects both religious liberty and women's health. No religiously affiliated institutions will have to pay for these services or even refer employees to this coverage. Instead, if a woman's employer is an objecting religious institution, her insurer will be the party required to enter into a separate contract to offer contraception coverage at no cost. Christian leaders concerned about protecting religious liberty rather than broadly restricting contraception should be satisfied with this accommodation.

Remember that under the health care reform law all insurance plans are required to cover a host of preventive services at no cost -- check-ups, mammograms, immunizations and cancer screenings. This will help save lives and control health-care costs. The non-partisan National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine recommended including birth control under these covered services. The Obama administration was wise to listen to the advice of the nation's leading medical experts.

While Catholic bishops and some evangelical leaders continue to thunder against even the revised solution that defends religious liberty and women's health, other religious leaders have expressed appreciation to the Obama administration for acting quickly to address concerns. The Catholic Health Association, representing more than 600 hospitals and 1,400 long-term care health facilities, welcomed the revisions.

Catholic bishops are now appearing to move the goal posts. They even want Catholics who own a business with no religious purpose -- a Taco Bell, for example -- to be exempt from providing contraception coverage under health care plans. Worse, the bishops and some of their evangelical allies even supported Republican-sponsored legislation that would have allowed all employers to refuse to cover any service they find morally objectionable. The Senate appropriately rejected this legislation that would have put the health of American families at the mercy of employers who have economic incentives to deny crucial medical services.

Let's not allow the political noise of an election year to distract us from basic facts or reject pragmatic solutions that will help the American people.

Rev. Richard Cizik served for ten years as vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, a post he left in 2008. In 2002, Cizik was a participant in Climate Forum 2002, at Oxford, England, which produced the "Oxford Declaration" on global warming. In 2005, the New York Times dubbed him the "Earthy Evangelist" for his advocacy on climate change, and in 2008 he was named to TIME Magazine's list of the "TIME 100" most influential people.

 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 164
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
06:36 AM on 03/16/2012
I wish that the more level-headed Christians, like it definitely seems the author is, would speak up more. For those who aren't Christian, the religious right with how they talk would have it seem like all of Christianity is behind them...its a wonder American non-theist in particular are so against Christianity, with the way the GOP presents itself as having all religious people behind it, and the way in tries to lie to Christians that the government is trying to destroy religion. Just felt like commenting, proud to be a non neo-con Christian.
been2there
Facts have a liberal bias.
07:26 PM on 03/11/2012
First Amendment, First Amendment, First Amendment! Tell the Vatican to shove it!
06:25 PM on 03/11/2012
Bravo Rev. Cizik for this thoughtful piece and your reasonable perspective.
04:34 PM on 03/11/2012
I am so tired of hearing about the “Government War on Religion” when what we really have is a “Christian War Against the Government” and it’s time to call them on it. I would love to be proven wrong on this! I would love for all of those people yelling and screaming about the poor Catholic Church being picked on by the nasty ‘ol government, to invite all religions to stand with them and to fight for the rights of all religions. Demand the right for Fundamental Mormons to be allowed multiple wives! Demand the right for Wiccans to dance naked around a campfire in the Wal-Mart parking lot if they so choose! Demand the right for certain followers of Buddhism to have their sky burials…placing the deceased on an open platform out in their backyard if they want to! Demand a Constitutional Amendment that specifically states “all religions have freedom to practice their religious beliefs anywhere and in any way they choose, regardless of federal laws.” When I see this, you can say you are fighting “a War Against Religion!” I will say again, what is happening now is a Christian War against the Government in order to gain unchecked power over the citizens of the United States.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindbird
Using my head for something other than a hat rack.
02:20 AM on 03/12/2012
You've got it pegged. Glad to be first fan. Fanned and Faved.
02:36 PM on 03/11/2012
Whose religious freedom is under attack? Not mine!

The religious right cries, "The secular left is attacking our freedom," but their cries ring hollow. "Religious freedom under attack" is being a Christian living in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and other modern Islamic nations, and not being allowed to worship publicly. “Attack" is passing laws that limit how individuals choose to worship. "Attack" is padlocking churches, mosques, synagogues or temples. "Attack" is forcing people to practice birth control or sterilization, as they are or were in China. "Attack" is being excluded from citizenship if one practices the "wrong" faith. When the right experiences such laws and policies, then I will admit their complaints are justified.

The pleas of the right to enshrine their beliefs in secular law are just as discriminatory as the passage of laws requiring faith based institutions to sponsor insurance for medical services that go against the sponsors' faith. I believe the proper role of a Christian person is to spread the gospel by living a Christian life and by personal communication to persuade unbelievers and lapsed believers to accept God, the Trinity of their own free will. If I merely sponsored laws against practices that run counter to my faith, then I would not be following Christ's example. In fact, I would probably be doing the opposite, driving souls away instead of winning them for Him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindbird
Using my head for something other than a hat rack.
02:21 AM on 03/12/2012
You're right. It does drive people away. And is a big part of the reason young people leave the church as well.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:01 AM on 03/12/2012
Very well thought out.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zariana
For SCIENCE!!!
01:51 PM on 03/11/2012
The War on Religion is real.

The Catholics and Evangelicals have declared War on my religion, and are trying to cram their beliefs down my throat. Keep your Churches separated from my State, please.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:46 AM on 03/11/2012
obama tells his daughters that Flukes life style is ok is just plain wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zariana
For SCIENCE!!!
01:52 PM on 03/11/2012
You don't like lawyers, I take it.
11:40 AM on 03/12/2012
A law student at Georgetown is a great life. I would want that for my daughter.
09:57 PM on 03/10/2012
Abortion is so unimportant it is not even mentioned in the Bible. Life does NOT begin at conception. On the very first page of the Bible, in Genesis, it says that when Adam was fully formed, God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Fake Fundamentalists can take some obscure verse and twist it however they want, but the Bible clearly says it is only after taking that first breath after birth, that one becomes a human. It does not matter how a person is created; natural childbirth, caesarian, in a petri dish,out of clay, immaculate conception or hatched. It's with the first breath that man gains a soul
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindbird
Using my head for something other than a hat rack.
02:31 AM on 03/12/2012
F&F
08:27 PM on 03/10/2012
Catholic bishops and evangelical leaders claiming "we have the right to deny anything on religious grounds" when it comes to health care and insurance better beware: they just might one day be denied a life-saving blood transfusion if their insurer, doctor or paramedic is a Jehovah's Witness, as blood transfusions are against Jehovah's Witness belief and thus would violate their "freedom of religion."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddy joe
welcome to the machine
10:00 AM on 03/10/2012
When it becomes illegal to speak against homosexuality, by citing the bible [hate speech ] , then it is a war against religion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bebby37
An old mad liberal white lady with pitchfork
11:05 AM on 03/10/2012
Religion is starting this war and it will backfire. Keep your religion and also keep it out of government.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mabinog
My micro-bio is a desolate wasteland
11:31 AM on 03/10/2012
where is this illegal, please cite the appropriate state or federal criminal code section.........
09:43 AM on 03/10/2012
I still don't see the rush to hand over resp for my health care to DC. Why would anyone think that DC wouldn;t use that against you? We already have politicians playing the medicare and medicaid scare card.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindbird
Using my head for something other than a hat rack.
02:51 AM on 03/12/2012
Look at the VA hospital system. It is one of the top ten medical systems in the country. If that is the example of government-run health care, count me in.
09:32 AM on 03/10/2012
Remind me of that scene from Life of Brian
"I can't tell you what to do. The Romans can't tell you what to do. Nobody can tell you what to do. You;ve got to think for yourselves!"
max bmw
My micro-bio is empty!
08:37 AM on 03/10/2012
Has this article been closed to comments? Why aren't my comments registering as pending while others this morning have gone through?
max bmw
My micro-bio is empty!
08:12 AM on 03/10/2012
Like the good reverend, I find it hard to believe that there is a "war on religion" when in my state I am constitutionally prohibited from holding elected office because I would "deny the being of Almighty God".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindbird
Using my head for something other than a hat rack.
02:53 AM on 03/12/2012
What state? As far as I know, there isn't a single state that prohibits atheists from holding political office since that would violate several amendments and articles in the Constitution. It forbids ANY form or religious test for public office.
max bmw
My micro-bio is empty!
06:51 AM on 03/12/2012
North Carolina. I quoted directly from the current NC state constitution. There are two things that disqualify a person from office, the first is if you would "deny the being of Almighty God" and the second is being a convicted felon or have been impeached.

While the US constitution prohibits religious tests there are still states that require them. Mississippi still does along with a few others.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Buzz the Bear
11:41 PM on 03/09/2012
If most religions were self supporting instead of feeding at the public trough by insisting on a tax exemption then they might have a little more credibility in this arguement. Let the believers support their religious beliefs and ministers and fancy (or modest) buildings and leave politics out of it. When a church spends millions of dollars to promote their political viewpoint the should lose any tax exempt status they enjoy. Let em feed the poor and clothe the naked and then they will be too busy (and broke) trying to tell non-believers how to conduct their lives and behavior.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddy joe
welcome to the machine
10:02 AM on 03/10/2012
LOL...What should religion be taxed for...feeding the poor, helping developing nations, spreading love?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AdamWest1313
Hardcore Agnostic
04:36 PM on 03/10/2012
Trying to influence the political process.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Buzz the Bear
06:23 PM on 03/11/2012
If they are going to be run like a business, let them be taxed as such. I don't like the tax breaks they get promoting political causes that I don't agree with.