Initially, after the HHS mandate for employers to provide birth control for its employees was announced, the religious right flank of the Jewish community, the Orthodox Union (OU), came out strongly against the decision. In the New York Times, the executive director of public policy for the OU Nathan Diament explained:
Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary [says] religious entities that “serve the general public and employ people of different faiths” should not receive the same religious liberty protections as, for example, a church or a synagogue. Such reasoning is wrongheaded.
For many people of diverse faiths, religious observance is not to be confined to the sanctuary. For many, faith compels engagement with the broader world and service to our fellow man, especially those in need. To say the government will afford religious liberty only to the most insular of religious institutions but not to those that serve, or employ, people of other faiths is a troubling view of faith and what role it should play in America.
If you read the statement closely, however, the OU appears to have more problem with Catholic groups’ non-classification as religious organizations verses the government’s mandate that they provide a service explicitly against their religion. After the president’s “compromise” (which Rep. Paul Ryan called merely an accounting trick) the OU changed its tune after meetings with the White House to craft the revisions, issuing a new press release stating it,
welcomed President Obama’s announcement that he is revising the regulation announced on January 20 by the Dept. of Health and Human Services in re: employers’ health insurance plans and religiously affiliated institutions.
The Orthodox Union criticized the previous regulation as being harmful to religious liberty and disturbingly defining religious entities that serve or employ people of other faith as undeserving of religious liberty protection.
Under the revised rule, no nonprofit, religious institutional employer that objects to providing contraceptives and sterilization services will have to pay for or provide coverage for it.
The left flank of the Jewish community, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (the RAC), also released a statement supporting the president’s “compromise,” and never released a statement on its position when the controversy first erupted. The director of the RAC, Rabbi David Saperstein, has a strong relationship with the Obama White House and personally consulted on the mandate throughout the process.
The Catholic Church is not fooled by the president’s “compromise” which requires insurance companies to provide the birth control verses the employers themselves. Under the “compromise,” the Catholic Church and its affiliates will still be paying the insurance company premiums and from those premiums Catholic employees will receive birth control from their employer-provided insurance. Today, LifeNews reported that every Catholic bishop in the United States opposes the mandate and yesterday, as Jonathan mentioned, Bishop William E. Lori spoke on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops against the mandate at a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
At the hearing, Bishop Lori compared the Church’s requirement to provide birth control to a kosher deli’s requirement to serve pork. Jonathan quoted the statement in full, and his post is a must-read. Many have scoffed at the comparison, and a more apt one may have been, “What if the government decides to outlaw the ‘barbaric’ practice of circumcision?” Unfortunately, it’s a comparison that may hit too close to home for many Jews (and Muslims), especially residents of San Francisco. Last year, the city came frighteningly close to outlawing a basic ritual central to both Abrahamic faiths. When that occurred the (notoriously left-wing) Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco released a statement opposing the circumcision ban, calling it “an unconscionable violation of the sanctuaries of faith and family.” The Catholic Church understood this attack on Jewish and Muslim religious liberty could be followed by an attack on theirs, and unfortunately, they were proven right.
While this fight about birth control may not be a Jewish issue, it is an issue of religious liberty. The Jewish community in San Francisco almost saw an infringement of its First Amendment rights passed into law last year, and its co-religionists spoke out for the sake of every religion’s right to practice freely. Now that this mandate is about to be enacted against every practicing Catholic in the United States, why won’t their Jewish co-religionists take the same stand?
the liberal Jews won't speak up against Obama. they are liberals first, Jews a very distant second.
But OU is not liberal. Very disappointing.
I'm beginning to think that simply including the word "Orthodox" in their name doesn't really mean anything. n nlet's face it: Jews were one of the prime movers of the Civil Rights struggle. I think many Jews want to support Obama simply because he's black.
OU's decision to back Obama is VERY disappointing. But let's be honest: (1) The Catholic Church had this coming, since it essentially backed ObamaCare or some version of Socialized Medicine for a long time and (2) this is not really a fight that only Catholics or Jews should have to fight–any person who objects to being pushed around by the government, or who values religious liberty should fight this. It is not just for Jews or Catholics to object to the unconstitutional and unAmerican monstrosity that is ObamaCare.
You are right BDZ; the Catholic Church had this coming as they have been for many years now proponents of Big Nanny-State Gov't. It did not seem to cross their minds that Big Gov't has an insatiable appetite and would sooner or later attempt to grind the Catholic Church under its heel also. Big Gov't does not like any competitors at all, in any way, shape, form or fashion.
98% of Catholic women have used birth control. Catholics and their Bishops are always at odds with each other. The current problem is a compliance issue regarding federal grants and subsidies and not a freedom of religion issue as the Church would have everybody believe. If I were a Jewish person my people were only 1.5% of the US population. I would run from this fight. All but a vocal few Catholics are trying to let this quietly blow over. We love our daughters, wives, sisters and mothers and want them to have every health care opportunity available to them whether they use them or not. Interfering by outsiders is not needed or wanted and would be remembered. Especially since Obama has offered a compromise the Catholic laity has found acceptable.
It is disappointing to see in a Commentary combox the kind of bigotry and credulity one might find at The Nation. It should be enough to state that the 98% figure was produced by the Guttmacher Institute –the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood—using methods that no respectable social scientist would accept. To imply that the Catholic Bishops' opposition to this mandate bespeaks an indifference to the health of women is contemptible. And to assert that what Obama has offered is a reasonable compromise, or that "the Catholic Laity" have found it acceptable is mendacious intellectual cowardice.
Jews will be fleeing the GOP in even greater droves than usual if Santorum (just say no to birth control) is the nominee. Say goodbye to Florida and goodbye to the presidency.
Nobody ever wanted "to outlaw the … practice of circumcision", only to to require it to be delayed until the person most directly concerned (the only person directly concerned) could give his informed consent to having it done to him.
Yes, I have been totally traumatized and emotionally-scarred for life by my circumcision as a baby which for the life of me I cannot seem to remember anything at all about that terrible, horrible day that my parents/doctor gleefully tortured me.
Many Jews hate and fear Christianity. For this reason, among others, non-Orthodox Jews have been leading voices in support of secularization, feminism, abortion, and the homosexual movement, not to speak of unfettered immigration. The fact that these forces are leading to the rapid demographic decline of American Jews is ironic, but it won't change anyone's mind.
Grumpy Old Man has been a vocal opponent of Israel since i remember him posting comments years ago. So, I have very little sympathy for him. It is ironic, therefore, that i agree with his posting- up to a point. Jews do NOT hate Christianity- but the only wing of Judaism who feels threatened by Christianity is the liberal wing, primarily Reform jewry, and therefore they are the most vocal proponent of liberalism. And yes- they are losing the demographic battle with their righ-t wing co-religionists,namely the orthodox, who are on their way of becoming the majority of American jewry in a decade or so.
I can't understand why Commentary, which has support close Catholic-Jewish relations, wants to give voice to people such as Kevin Madigan who view Pope Pius XII as a Holocaust enabler.
EVERYONE, of ANY faith should support the compromise. Obama's plan is based upon the principles of the classical "poskim" (high-level Rabbinic judges). He is allowing the Church to use the insurance company as their "Shabbos goy," a non-Jew paid to do certain forbidden activities, like turning on the lights, for Jews observing the Sabbath. A Shabbos goy knows which tasks need to be done, so the Sabbath observer need not DIRECTLY order him to do any specific task, which is usually forbidden.