Of all the strange things that have happened in the interpretation of “the separation of church and state” injunction in our Constitution, the latest is by far the most dangerous.
We are used to the revised standard version in judicial activism whereby the intent of the Founding Fathers was, among other things, that the state must prohibit prayer in public schools and any religious symbols in public buildings or spaces. Never mind that such was never in the minds of the framers of the Constitution nor was it the practice of the people of this nation over most of its long history. But god-like judges and politicians are able to divine the meaning of the Constitution in a way we ordinary mortals are not.
Let’s look again at the first right in what the rest of us take to be the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .” The first clause means, and was always taken to mean, that there will be no government-established church in this country, as there was and remains in England. The state will not be in the business of supporting, favoring or identifying itself with any particular religion. The second clause, evidently, means that government will not act to infringe the right of the people to the free exercise of their religion.
Last month, Secretary of Health and Human Services Katherine Sabelius issued a decree which will force employers in this country to provide health care plans which offer “preventive services” without co-pays. “Preventive services” is government-speak for birth control, i.e., contraception, sterilization and abortifacients. A decree was necessary because the administration is still trying to figure out the implications and consequences of that 2,000-plus page leviathan of legislation called the Affordable Care Act. We all recall the former Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying that the politicians had to pass the bill so that they could find out what was in it. Now we’re beginning to find out.
The government is going to allow minimum exemption to this provision of the act. It knows, as Sabelius, who is herself a Roman Catholic, must know, that the Catholic Church among other religious bodies will not be able to comply without contradicting its core religious beliefs. The administration is not saying that the church must provide free contraception; it’s only saying that, as an employer, it must pay for it. The Gospel says “where your treasure is, there also is your heart.” The Catholic Church in particular, but not exclusively, understands that this decree will compromise the free exercise of its religion. The exemption offered to the church and like bodies might cover parishes but will not extend to the thousands of schools, universities, heath care institutions and adoption and relief service agencies run by it.
Sabelius insists that the administration took into consideration concerns about religious liberty: “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” So she and the rest of the administration will now decide what balance of religious freedom is to be allowed to the people. The Catholic Church won’t be and shouldn’t be the only party to object to this further trampling of the Bill of Rights and the free exercise of religion in our country.
Where the Constitution prohibits an established church, we now face the dangerous prospect of the state establishment prohibiting a religious practice and by extension religion’s participation in many aspects of civil society. The administration is attempting to redefine religion as what goes on only in church; thus the narrow exemption for parishes. But no religion, not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or any other that I can think of, will allow so narrow an understanding of the “free exercise of religion.”
Many people in this country do not agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception but if this decree is allowed to stand, no people will be allowed to dissent from the state’s teaching on contraception. Or — wait for it — on anything else. Goodbye (religious) freedom. Welcome the newly established church of the state.
Jon Edney is a former El Centro city council member.
We are used to the revised standard version in judicial activism whereby the intent of the Founding Fathers was, among other things, that the state must prohibit prayer in public schools and any religious symbols in public buildings or spaces. Never mind that such was never in the minds of the framers of the Constitution nor was it the practice of the people of this nation over most of its long history. But god-like judges and politicians are able to divine the meaning of the Constitution in a way we ordinary mortals are not.
Last month, Secretary of Health and Human Services Katherine Sabelius issued a decree which will force employers in this country to provide health care plans which offer “preventive services” without co-pays. “Preventive services” is government-speak for birth control, i.e., contraception, sterilization and abortifacients. A decree was necessary because the administration is still trying to figure out the implications and consequences of that 2,000-plus page leviathan of legislation called the Affordable Care Act. We all recall the former Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying that the politicians had to pass the bill so that they could find out what was in it. Now we’re beginning to find out.
The government is going to allow minimum exemption to this provision of the act. It knows, as Sabelius, who is herself a Roman Catholic, must know, that the Catholic Church among other religious bodies will not be able to comply without contradicting its core religious beliefs. The administration is not saying that the church must provide free contraception; it’s only saying that, as an employer, it must pay for it. The Gospel says “where your treasure is, there also is your heart.” The Catholic Church in particular, but not exclusively, understands that this decree will compromise the free exercise of its religion. The exemption offered to the church and like bodies might cover parishes but will not extend to the thousands of schools, universities, heath care institutions and adoption and relief service agencies run by it.
Sabelius insists that the administration took into consideration concerns about religious liberty: “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” So she and the rest of the administration will now decide what balance of religious freedom is to be allowed to the people. The Catholic Church won’t be and shouldn’t be the only party to object to this further trampling of the Bill of Rights and the free exercise of religion in our country.
Where the Constitution prohibits an established church, we now face the dangerous prospect of the state establishment prohibiting a religious practice and by extension religion’s participation in many aspects of civil society. The administration is attempting to redefine religion as what goes on only in church; thus the narrow exemption for parishes. But no religion, not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or any other that I can think of, will allow so narrow an understanding of the “free exercise of religion.”
Many people in this country do not agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception but if this decree is allowed to stand, no people will be allowed to dissent from the state’s teaching on contraception. Or — wait for it — on anything else. Goodbye (religious) freedom. Welcome the newly established church of the state.
Jon Edney is a former El Centro city council member.
