The bishops' Fortnight for Freedom is over, but the concern for religious liberty has only begun to be heard. The two-week launch got people listening and praying. Now where do those who want to stand up for religious freedom go?
The answer is everywhere because religious freedom is a worldwide concern. Read the newspapers and you see massacres in churches in Nigeria and Iraq. Look to neighboring Cuba and you see how religious freedom has been severely restricted under the Castro regime.
Look in the United States, where freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment's free exercise clause, and you see a sophisticated type of assault. It is unbloody, but far-reaching. Ironically, the assaults are not from some guerilla group or despot, but from the government. Foreign nations that look to the U.S. to protect their religious freedom have to shudder.
The assaults vary, but what they have in common is preventing religious bodies from operating according to their moral standards. For example, through the new Affordable Care Act most employers, including many religious ones, are compelled to provide free-of-charge to employees and their families contraception, female sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, even when they violate church teachings. Government, in a miserly gesture, says it will grant an exception to entities it defines as religious enough to merit protection of their religious liberty. That means the parish church is religious enough but not the church's hospitals, schools, colleges, soup kitchens and other social services. You may think the latter obviously are religious works but the government says they are not if you serve needy people other than your co-religionists.
Catholicism calls Catholics to help those in need.
Hard to live out the free exercise of your religion with this HHS mandate, the first of its kind in U.S. history. To add insult to injury, for centuries these church services have very effectively helped people who otherwise would have had to rely on government for such care. In fact, one out of six people in the U.S. who need hospital care get it at a Catholic hospital.
Catholic foster care and adoption services were forced to close in major metropolitan areas when Boston, San Francisco, the District of Columbia and the State of Illinois drove local Catholic Charities out of the business of providing adoption or foster care services. They did it by revoking their licenses, by ending their government contracts or both because those Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples or unmarried opposite-sex couples who cohabit. While the Catholic Church holds that a marriage is between a man and a woman and that children are best raised in a mother-father family unit, the government says if you hold that religious view, you have to give up a longstanding church ministry through which orphaned or otherwise needy children have been helped.
It's not just Catholics who are afflicted. New York City adopted a policy that barred the Bronx Household of Faith and other churches from renting public school property on weekends for worship services, even though nonreligious groups could rent the same schools for many other uses. Is prayer more threatening than hoops? A few days ago a federal court finally ended this discriminatory policy, though appeals may continue.
In its entire history, the University of California Hastings College of Law has denied student organization status to only one group, the Christian Legal Society, because it required its leaders to be Christian and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. Does it threaten the public well-being to require a Christian organization to be led by a Christian?
A New Jersey judge recently found that a Methodist ministry violated state law when the ministry declined to allow two women to hold a "civil union" ceremony on its private property. Also recently, a civil rights complaint was filed against the Catholic Church in Hawaii by those wanting to use a chapel to hold a same-sex "marriage" ceremony. Is the country better for such in-your-face rejection of a church's teaching?
The religious freedom campaign has an uphill battle before it, but it is hard to imagine our nation won't be better for it. Not to mention those nations where people subjected to bloody religious battles barely have a prayer now.
Follow Sister Mary Ann Walsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/USCCB
Michael Meyerson: In the Beginning: Religious Freedom in the Country's Founding Moments
David Lose: Is America a Christian Nation?
Jon O'Brien: Let's Celebrate Real Religious Freedom
for every incident that was described in your litany of wrongs to religious institutions, there is a compelling counter argument as to why things happened the way they did.
fact is, religious institutions still have to obey federal law.
Sister Walsh claims that her rights have been violated because she is not allowed to force other people to obey her religion. That is completely backwards. Those other people have the right to decide for themselves what, if any, religious teachings they will obey.
Sister Walsh has the right, if she wants, to believe and obey the teachings of the Catholic church. She does NOT have the right to force others to obey those same teachings.
And, she is NOT a victim.
The first freedom is freedom FROM Religion. It goes along with prohibiting free exercise.
Nothing could be more deceitful, contemptible and anti-American than for politically active ultra-conservative Christians, Catholics and Mormons to seek control (or "dominion," to use a Biblical word) over secular civil government, and through that our bodies and minds, with the goal of establishing a nation governed by White Christians and their unique ultra-conservative Christian "understanding" of biblical law.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
Just so. Your so-called right to religious freedom ends when you use the power of Bishops and Cardinals to excommunicate on the six so-called "Justices" of the SCOTUS and force your religion upon the rest of us.
Birth Control is the single most effective means of preventing abortions of unwanted and unplanned children. To be against Birth Control is to be FOR MORE ABORTIONS automatically.
Birth Control generally costs far less than unplanned pregnancy, both for the insurance companies and for the pregnant woman. Birth Control in bulk, with generics bulk purchased by group plans, saves all rate payers money by reducing the healthcare costs to the insured pool. To be AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL means that you are automatically FOR HIGHER INSURANCE RATES for everybody.
Insurance is PRIVATE PROPERTY. It belongs solely to the named policy-holder. It is not property of the church, not property of govt, not property of employers. You are AGAINST PRIVATE PROPERTY when you anti-constitutionally try to deliver political power and control to any religious group imposing it's will over free citizens private property.
Insurance is an earned wage based on employee work.. It is a part of wages and a form of wages. The bible says the workman is entitled to his (her) wages. Religion cannot dictate what an employee can spend their fungible cash wages on, including Birth Control, including Abortion.
It is none of any religion's business how employees use their wages.
Any person found to be lying about this subject matter is FOR INCREASED MISERY and AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND PRIVATE GENITALS.
All liars are children of SATAN, so said Jesus.
Wrong. The insurance companies are required to offer these LEGAL medical interventions. The employer is NOT COMPELLED to provide this. The plan is. All insurance sold in the US will meet this requirement. READ THE ACT!
Your representation of the UC Hastings Law case is a flat out lie--you're a nun...you should know better. The CLS was denied status because Hastings had an "all comers" policy. In order for a student organization at Hastings to have status, it had to all anyone from the student body to join. This was true of ALL of Hastings' student organizations. The CLS refused to allow LGBT people from another student organization to join. CLS violated school policy...and the Supreme Court agreed. The following is from the SCOTUS syllabus: "CLS interprets its bylaws to exclude from affiliationanyone who engages in “unrepentant homosexual conduct” or holds religious convictions different from those in the Statement of Faith." Seems like an exclusionary policy. If an LGBT group refused christians, the result would have been the same. Incidentally, Hastings tried to bend over backwards for the CLS giving them everything else the school offered to other groups except official recognition. Religion is not under assault...it is smashing the defenses. (Cont'd)
What about the New Jersey case? Again, you are dishonest. Here's some info for you: U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, Jr., in whose Congressional district Ocean Grove is located, stated "they've taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public." This isn't about "private" property as you state; it is, in a very real and legal sense, public property.
Look, if you don't want to be interfered with, don't run organizations that require government licensing of any kind, don't run businesses, and--above all else--never take government money. When you do these things, you cease to be a church and you are now subject to the same governmental requirements the rest of us are subject. Look at the area outside of your church as having an "all comers" policy...like UC Hastings.
(Snark) You see, this isn't just an unfortunate incident of secular law at odds with religious beliefs. No, this is of course an all-out attack of the government persecuting the RCC and religious believers in general. And all of the other provisions of the ACA that have nothing to do with contraception are just cover for these evil politicians to bring down religion, like in Cuba. (End snark)
Seriously, I can understand that some Catholics may not be happy with this, but do you think an article full of rampant demagoguery is the best way to argue your opinion? Arguing religious liberty is fine. Implying that there's some kind of malicious attack on religion just makes you sound nuts.
Btw, when you stand with the Rastafarians and push to make cannabis legal for religious purposes, I'll take you more seriously. What's that? Not going to happen? So you do believe there should be restrictions on religious freedom? Hmmm ... are you from Cuba?
This cartoon sums up the position of this article perfectly...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/01/29/lack-of-respect/