|
Religious freedom in America
The Catholic bishops are challenging a New York law that requires Catholic institutions to include contraceptives in employee medical coverage. The law, which we’ve mentioned before, is a violation of the most basic respect for the religious convictions of others. However, a similar challenge was rejected not long ago in California, and it’s doubtful the New York bishops will be more successful. The right of women who want to work for the Catholics instead of someone else to have reimbursement for contraceptives as part of their compensation package overrides the right of the Church to follow what it has always considered an absolute moral command. All of which makes sense of a sort. After all, equality is a steamroller and its function is to smash all social authorities except those the managerial state can easily regulate. If religion could stand up to it what would become of the future of which our rulers dream? Posted by Jim Kalb at January 07, 2003 09:58 AM | Send Comments
I agree with Mr. Kalb’s concerns expressed here, and I wish the Catholics a favorable outcome in this litigation — though I must say, there are issues of much graver import, in regard to which the Catholic hierarchy shows lack of sense, and if I could choose, I’d prefer they lose this fight and get their heads screwed-on frontwards on some other issues I could name. I’m unable to sympathize with the Catholic Church’s position against birth control pills, but I feel strongly that in this case there is a deeper principle which makes it in everyone’s interest that the Church prevail. Just curious — anyone know the outcome of that case not long ago in which a Sikh sued, asking the court to affirm his right to wear his religion-mandated turban in on-the-job circumstances felt by the employer to be either dangerous or otherwise inappropriate for turbans? Posted by: Unadorned on January 7, 2003 8:11 PMIt seems to me that all this is inevitable once states mandate what services private institutions must cover for their employees. Religious Liberty is a right in the SU, but so are freedom of association, private property, and contract. All have been eroded or trampled underfoot by government actions. Forcing religious institutions to follow immoral laws is a new low, but a logical conclusion of the liberal welfare states attack on individual rights. Posted by: Ron on January 8, 2003 3:27 AMI read, and I think this might be what Unadorned is refering to, that although the Bishops are opposing the contraceptive mandate, they are continuing to support the other government mandates. One would hope that they would see the broader picture that government mandates violate their right to private property, i.e. the money paid out in wages as insurance, as well as the right of the Church not to be subordinate to the state, but unfortunately they don’t. Even if they lose this fight, I find it highly doubtful they will “get their heads screwed-on frontwards”. At least not on the previously mentioned violations, if recent history in the U.S. is any guide. Posted by: F. Salzer on January 9, 2003 5:05 AM |