Jefferson’s Wall
TDOM is a good guy even if he is a damned crotchety old man who leans heavily toward the liberal side of the aisle. His post on the HHS mandate and Catholic employers is an example of that lean.
One reason we like TDOM is that even with said lean, he is intellectually honest. He does not claim the wall of separation between church and state, one of the most cherished facets of liberal canon, is found in the Constitution; he rightly attributes it to the letter Thomas Jefferson sent to a Baptist group that had requested a day of fasting be made law.
Thus [Jefferson] not only established a “wall of separation,” but also (because he was denying a request from a religious institution) he established a “freedom from religion.”
This is an important point. The Catholic Church’s stance is that the government’s mandate to provide contraception to its employees is a violation of the “wall of separation.” However, the Church employs many non-members in its organizations. By refusing to provide contraception, it is imposing its own religious practices upon those employees who are non-members. Its demand for an exemption to a policy applied to the rest of the population would be a violation of the freedom from religion established by Jefferson in 1802 in the same statement that established the “wall of separation” on which the Church is now relying.
Notice that TDOM does not offer his own opinion of the mandate. His point is that it is being unevenly applied. But is this accurate?
Further, the issue raises questions as whom the First Amendment actually applies. Does the Church, a non-human entity, hold the same rights as the people who would be affected? If so, how much sway should the rights of a single institution hold? In other words, does the Church get more than one vote? If the exemption is granted, the rights of this one institution could be said to outweigh the rights of tens of thousands of its employees.Jeffersonruled in favor of the people by denying the Church’s request in 1802.
This presents an interesting dilemma. If Congress grants the Church’s request, precedent will be set for the rights of a single institution to take precedence over the rights of thousands of individuals. In effect, it would abolish the idea of government by the people, for the people, and of the people. What the Catholic Church is (perhaps unwittingly) demanding is an end to religious freedom and an establishment of government by Church and/or corporate dictate.
The entity vs. individuals argument avoids the salient point – those who must comply with the mandate are individuals. Government cannot compel them to violate their beliefs. It’s part of the free exercise clause. This undercuts the final paragraph. If individuals are forced to buy birth control, they are not being denied the right to use birth control. If those morally opposed to birth control are compelled to pay for it, their rights are being curtailed.
If a wall is to exist, it must provide a barrier between both sides. If the liberals don’t want to ascribe to Catholic canon, they cannot turn around and demand Catholics ascribe to liberal canon.
No.
Sorry oh wandering king, but you do not have the right of this.
They can make people ascribe to the liberal canon and have done so for decades and the church has gone along with it.
I believe the social programs, social security, medicare and medicaid, welfare, all of it are immoral and undermine the society. I think paying for the wars in the middle east are all immoral. I think the government borrowing money is immoral.
Yet I have to pay for it, or will pay for it.
The churches could have opposed this, yet they didn’t care.
If you’re going to give people the ability to “opt out” of paying for government programs they don’t agree with, then you are going to end up with a government that cannot collect taxes.
Finally, and from the very beginning freedom of (not from that’s important) means only one thing legally:
You can believe whatever you want.
That’s it.
Belief.
Nothing more.
I cannot emphasize that enough.
It does not mean you can practice whatever you want. It does not allow you to avoid doing what the government wants you to do or not do.
I want you to think about that last statement.
Grok the truth of it.
Only then can you understand.
Stop the government from selling the mineral rights and having a company strip out the silver in your sacred lands . . .nope. Sacrifice chickens (or anything else) . . . nope. Polygamy . . . nope. Take peyote . . . nope. Make you or your children say pedge of allegiance . . . yep.
Religion ALWAYS loses if the government has a reason, however flimsy, to say thou shall not do X, or thou shall do Y.
Finally, the catholic church bought and paid for this. They were perfectly happy making everyone pay for socialism . . . err “social justice” even if it is blasphemous (one of their popes, not me saying that). and then suddenly they yelp.
Yea Hypocrits! They are getting paid what they bartered for.
Yes, but I’d rather the argument be “because we have more guns than you” than some BS about why the coercive nanny state is more constitutional than a limited state. I have to give points to libs like Ezra Klein, and formerly to Obama himself, because he at least admits he doesn’t like the constitution.
You might be interested in this post on the failure of churches. Make sure to click through to Levin and Douthat.
Well, I think TDOM is way off-base on this, as you can see from my earlier comments and also my more recent comments there.
Fucking good-for-nothing Baby Boomers. Just fuck off already, you’ve caused enough damage. They’re all going to die soon anyway, but they won’t be satisfied until they give us one more big fist up the ass.
Nice to see that others are reading and talking about what I write. Agree or not, I like to inspire discussion. To say that I’m left-leaning is a fair assessment, though perhaps not as much as you think. I don’t align myself with any particular ideology, but if you really want to describe my politics, quasi-liberal libertarian would probably do. However, I call myself a free radical.
“those who must comply with the mandate are individuals. Government cannot compel them to violate their beliefs.”
Yes, and no. The individuals within the organization are not the ones paying for the insurance, the organization is footing the bill. I think that’s an important distinction. Further there is a degree of separation between the organization and the actual purchase of the contraception. That is the insurance company. The Church pays the insurance compant to provide an insurance policy. At that point the money belongs to the insurance comapny, not the Church. The insurance company then pays for the contraception. So technically speaking the Church would not be providing contraception.
As for Obamacare, I do not give my opinion of it in that article. I didn’t want that to be the focus. The article was more about the separation of Church and state. But I will say it here. I believe the government has absolutely no right to force insurance upon people who don’t want it.
TDOM
Then consider me educated.
I’m more perturbed by the idea that people cannot purchase anything for themselves than I am by the contraceptive angle. Birth control isn’t that expensive.