[Vision2020] The Politics of Religion

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=a0648a22/f9dac8ac&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787506c_nyt5&ad=LolaVersus_120x60_NoText_Apr6&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Flolaversus>

------------------------------
May 27, 2012
The Politics of Religion

Thirteen Roman Catholic dioceses and some Catholic-related groups scattered
lawsuits across a dozen federal courts last week claiming that President
Obama was violating their religious
freedom<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/us/catholic-groups-file-suits-on-contraceptive-coverage.html?_r=1>by
including contraceptives in basic health care coverage for female
employees. It was a dramatic stunt, full of indignation but built on air.

Mr. Obama’s contraception-coverage mandate specifically exempts houses of
worship. If he had ordered all other organizations affiliated with a
religion to pay for their employees’ contraception coverage, that policy
could probably be justified under Supreme Court precedent, including a 1990
opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia.

But that argument does not have to be made in court, because Mr. Obama very
publicly backed down from his original position and gave those groups a way
around the contraception-coverage requirement.

Under the Constitution, churches and other religious organizations have
total freedom to preach that contraception is sinful and rail against Mr.
Obama for making it more readily available. But the First Amendment is not
a license for religious entities to impose their dogma on society through
the law. The vast majority of Americans do not agree with the Roman
Catholic Church’s anti-contraception stance, including most American
Catholic women.

The First Amendment also does not exempt religious entities or individuals
claiming a sincere religious objection from neutral laws of general
applicability, a category the new contraception rule plainly fits. In 1990,
Justice Scalia reminded us that making “the professed doctrines of
religious belief superior to the law of the land” would mean allowing
“every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

In 1993, Congress required government actions that “substantially burden a
person’s exercise of
religion<http://www.churchstatelaw.com/federalstatutes/7_2.asp>”
to advance a compelling interest by the least restrictive means. The new
contraceptive policy does that by promoting women’s health and autonomy.

And there was no violation of religious exercise to begin with. After
religious groups protested, the administration put the burden on insurance
companies to provide free contraceptive coverage to women who work for
religiously affiliated employers like hospitals or universities — with no
employer involvement.

This is a clear partisan play. The real threat to religious liberty comes
from the effort to impose one church’s doctrine on everyone.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120528/171a7f2d/attachment.html>