It may be that the Supreme Court’s pending decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare will render moot the controversy about whether Catholic institutions can be compelled to pay for practices that they oppose on religious grounds. But no matter how the court rules, the impact of the increasingly nasty effort to discredit the church’s effort to defend itself will still be felt. A good example of how liberals are trying to brand the church’s defenders as “partisans” when the opposite is true, came in the editorial in Sunday’s New York Times that branded the lawsuit launched by church institutions as a “stunt.”
The Times argues that the government’s attempt to compel the church to violate its principles was not a violation of its rights and further claims the inadequate “compromise” proposed by the White House should have silenced their concerns. This is an absurd distortion of the facts, but far worse is the way the Times — following the Obama campaign’s playbook — tries to claim that Catholics seek to impose their beliefs on others. Quite the contrary, it is the government fiat that employees at Catholic institutions are provided with free contraception that is the imposition. The point here is not so much to advance the cause of women’s health — the justification advocates of the government’s position seek to use — but to demonize a faith group that has the temerity to stick up for its rights.
Religious freedom is not just the right to, as the Times puts it, “preach that contraception is sinful and rail against Mr. Obama for making it more readily available” (though in fact, the Church is not seeking to curtail the availability of contraception to the general public). It is also the right not to have its institutions forced to either pay for or facilitate the receipt of services that run contrary to its principles.
It bears repeating that one needn’t share the Vatican’s views on contraception to understand that a government dictat that would coerce churches to dispense it is a violation of their religious liberty. Nor would a so-called “compromise” that would maintain the imposition but shift its cost reduce the threat to freedom. But the fact, as the Times points out, that even most Catholics support contraception does not mean the church and those who agree with it should be stripped of their rights. Allowing their institutions to abstain from providing contraception coverage does not make the church a law unto itself or impose its views on others; it merely leaves them alone. Nor does the government’s obligation to advance a “compelling interest” grant it the latitude to violate those rights. Those who wish to receive free contraception don’t have to work for the church. The idea that a fanciful constitutional right to such services should trump religious freedom is the product of a mindset in which all freedoms can be annulled for the sake of some mythical and unproven greater good.
Far from the church behaving in a partisan manner by imposing the president’s fiat, it is simply standing up for itself against a government that is determined to squelch dissent on the administration’s unpopular signature legislative achievement. The Supreme Court will determine ObamaCare’s fate. But the determined campaign to silence the church and to delegitimize its attempt to defend its rights will resonate for some time.
Where is the American Jewish Committee on this?
"The Supreme Court will determine ObamaCare’s fate. But the determined campaign to silence the church and to delegitimize its attempt to defend its rights will resonate for some time."–yes, it will resonant for some time, then fade out. The defenders of religious liberty are gone. Even the religious institutions themselves cannot support their own views, such as their opposition to gay marriage. And the Catholic Church can barely muster support for their core teaching on contraception. n
Anti-Catholism is alive and well not only in its' tradtional home , the NYT, but in the veiws of liberals everywhere. It is an American traditition to disparage views that do not coincide with our own, a traditional of intolerance the MSM and Democratic keeps alive and well. Perhaps they will next bring back witch burning.
OK, here's the thing: the Catholic Church is being marginalized by the very fact that it seems only the Catholic Church fighting for religious liberty that is ever mentioned. In actuality, this is a fight for religious liberty of all Americans. It's not just about Catholic institutions providing insurance, but anyone with religious beliefs. If I am a business owner and provide insurance for someone who wants an abortion, If I'm pro-life I should not be required to pay for it and neither should the American taxpayer. It is abhorent to me that the Constitution continues to be shredded by this president.
The Catholic bishops deserve our support even if they are responsible for much of their grief. ObamaCare was passed only because the American hierarchy gave it their blessing. These men normally support the domestic policies of the Democratic Party. Those who often play with fire get burned. We are morally compelled to help them—but it also behooves us to remind them to cease behaving so recklessly.
I think we should be asking ourselves why we giving a momentsu2019 consideration to the nonsense that it is the publicu2019s responsibility to pay for anybodyu2019s contraception. r nr nIs there no regard nowadays for individual responsibility for paying for oneu2019s own behavior?r nr nAt this rate next week we are likely to hear Emperor Obama proclaim that all employers must pay for the beer or cocktail that many people want to drink after a hard dayu2019s work. And then Nancy Pelosi will produce the next Sandra Fluke who will whine before a bunch of useless legislators (who are incapable of passing a budget) and on every chat show on TV about having to pay for his/her own beer while living as a student.r nr nThe fact this kind of charade occurs at all and is even taken seriously by a single legislator, to say nothing of a congressional leader and of course the media, says all you need to know about the State of the Union.
I think we should be asking ourselves why we giving a moments’ consideration to the nonsense that it is the public’s responsibility to pay for anybody’s contraception. n nIs there no regard nowadays for individual responsibility for paying for one’s own behavior? n nAt this rate next week we are likely to hear Emperor Obama proclaim that all employers must pay for the beer or cocktail that many people want to drink after a hard day’s work. And then Nancy Pelosi will produce the next Sandra Fluke who will whine before a bunch of useless legislators (who are incapable of passing a budget) and on every chat show on TV about having to pay for his/her own beer while living as a student. n nThe fact this kind of charade occurs at all and is even taken seriously by legislators, to say nothing of a congressional leader and of course the media, says all you need to know about the State of the Union. n
The left as much as the right are full of dishonesty. Hopefully the center/independent will make the correct choice for the country.