Obama's defense of religion

[rug]

How he's expanded freedom for the faithful

Steve Chapman
February 23, 2012

Catholic bishops, evangelical pastors and Republican presidential candidates have been decrying the Obama administration's war on religious liberty. Amid all the uproar, it's easy to overlook something equally important: the administration's many battles for religious liberty.

The president has gotten deserved criticism for trying to force Catholic colleges and hospitals to buy insurance coverage for something they regard as evil: birth control. But that's only part of the story. In other realms, believers have found a Barack Obama and his Justice Department to be staunch allies.

The most conspicuous surprise involves government rules for faith-based organizations that get federal funding for social services.President George W. Bushissued an executive order allowing such groups to hire only people who share their faith — exempting them from the usual ban on religious discrimination. Liberal critics accused him of underwriting "theocracy" and "faith-based coercion."

One of the opponents was Obama. In his presidential campaign, he said his view was simple: "If you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0223-chapman-20120223,0,4351734.column

[DURHAM D]

1. Ok - this is where I quit reading -

"The president has gotten deserved criticism..."

[darkstar3]

2. Yup. Clear evidence that all that follows is worthless.

[rug]

3. Then you missed this.

"That's not the sentiment at the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, which includes such perennial Obama critics as theU.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention. It has taken the uncharacteristic step of siding with the administration.

'We commend your steadfast preservation of federal policies that protect the freedom of religious organizations to consider religion in making employment decisions," it informed Obama last year. "Mr. President, your appreciation for the good that religious organizations contribute on a daily basis to our society is evident.'"

[Brettongarcia]

4. Two readings of freedom of religion: "right" to employ own religion; right of others to be employed

Seems like many are missing the point here in fact.

Traditionally, in the Bush years, folks asserted that "freedom of religion" means that say, 1) a government-sponsored religious charity has the right, the freedom, to employ in their charity, only members of their own faith. But Obama here advances another reading: 2) how about the rights of other citizens, to be employed, without having to meet such religious tests? The right of a Baptist, say, to work in a Catholic charity. Particularly if that charity after all, is funded partially by public funds.

I've been using a similar concept in the current controversy regarding Catholics being "forced to pay" for contraception. Or even to offer contraceptive services in Catholic hospitals. Note here, religious freedom has been read by Republicans, as supporting the 1) desire of Catholic hospitals, to cater to Catholic beliefs, and to forbid contraceptive services. But against that? Consider 2) another religious freedom: the right of persons of other religions that allow contraception and abortion, to get the services they want, at the hospital. Without their OWN religious beliefs, their allowance of contraception and abortion, being denied.

In the past the Bush administration put the stress on the first reading of freedom of religion; the right of one faith, to exclude others. Obama here however, stresses the second freedom.

Particularly when the charity in question, is getting government funds. Since in that case? Giving government monies to a particular religion that discriminates against other religious beliefs (like the belief that abortion is allowable), would cross the line. That would be government sponsorship/"establishment" of a particular religion, against all other religions.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. Why the fuck is the president supporting subsidizing discrimination? This is appalling! n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

6. Oh, and this isn't supporting religious freedom, this is back-alley theocracy...

government supported religious organization that can hire and fire based on religion, in addition to have lack of oversight, and ability to preach to people. What the fuck happened to separation of church and state? Religions certainly have no right to OUR tax money.

[Brettongarcia]

7. Its a balance between 1) "No establishment," and 2) "Freedom of religion"

Regarding the relation of government to religion, there are two relevant elements in the Constitution to balance. One 1) wants to allow freedom of religion. So that? We might allow religious institutions to hire who they want to; people of their own religion and so forth. But? 2) We can't go too far with this ... without favoring religion too much. And setting up a favored religion, an "establishment of religion."

To strike a balance between these two, is Obama's strategy. But by the way? Notice that while he makes some concessions to religion, honoring "freedom of religion" to some extent? Here Obama is tilting toward ... avoiding sponsoring religion as much as the Bush administration did.

How far is he carrying that out? Witness the current problem with the Church, crying for a "conscience" opt-out. The church says 1) not participating in the Health Plan, because of the abortion issue, is their religious freedom. But many around Obama are arguing that 2) giving Catholics a right to opt out, gives them special privileges. That it is indeed, favoring the Church, favoring a religion, and granting it special privileges. And the trend seems to be in reining in those privileges.

Does even the Obama admin, continue to grant SOME longstanding special privileges to religion? Like tax-exempt status? Yes it does. But it would be hard to reverse THAT longstanding tradition. While at the same time, the STRESS however, in his administration, is to note that to favor religions much, is to risk violating the no "establishment" clause, indeed.

To an atheist then, Obama's record is not perfect here; but some might say that this administration is far more aware of the atheists' claims, than others.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. There is no balance when they are taking PUBLIC money, that is a violation of the establishment...

clause all by itself, particularly if they are allowed to discriminate based on religion.

[Brettongarcia]

9. YUP! So when the Church turned that deal down? Here's the next deal Obama c/SHOULD offer

Consider the case of a Catholic hospital. Since Church hospitals take public funds, therefore they are not wholly religious. They now have obligations to the state. And cannot act entirely according to every minor religious belief; but must be required to serve people of all religions. So what happens when a Protestant - whose religion allows contraception - comes to the Catholic Hospital?

There is a Catholic hospital near me. But I am a protestant, and want contraception services. They cannot refuse to provide it to me ... for many reasons. One: because 1) they take federal funds, and owe service to the state; 2) they are not entirely religious. They are a hospital, taking government money. While 3) we give money to them in order to serve ALL the people... and not just their own religion. If they served only their own, then we would have been supporting a particular religion, against all others. (And would have violated the establishment clause).

So here we have a new configuration. While the Church turned down the "conscience" opt-out, now a new picture comes into focus. Fine says the Obama admin and the law, if the Church turned down the opt-out provision;since that might have been unconstitutional anyway. Now the new deal is: provide the service, or lose federal funding; and/or be sued for religious discrimination. The government asserting here that it has no choice in this matter; it cannot do otherwise without violating the establishment clause.

There are lots of aspects to this interesting case: when a protestant like me who want contraception, whose religion allows contraception, goes to a Catholic hospital , the hospital cannot discriminate against me, and my desire for contraceptive services. Partially becase the government paid them to serve all. But also because ... because my religion allows contraception. And if they refuse me? They are ... discriminating against MY religion.

So amazingly, "freedom of religion" is a double-edged sword.

The Bishops aren't really seeing this larger implication; how their exercise of their own "religious freedom" denies the religious principles of others; and on our government dime, especially.

But to finally illustrate the myopic side of their vision, here's a hypothetical case posed by a caller on EWTN a few days ago: suppose you are a protestant, with a wife whose life is being endangered by a pregnancy. You take her to the local - as it turns out, Catholic - hospital. And they refuse to perform this emergency operation. So that, sadly, your wife dies. Then what has happened? First 1) the hospital has not honored YOUR religious beliefs; and out of that perhaps 2) even killed your wife. All 3) in the name of freedom of religion. While 4) using your own tax dollars to do all that. Here the hospital, piously following its religious beliefs, would have discriminated against others beliefs. And caused grave injury because of it.

The fact is that often the religious beliefs of people conflict in everyday life; and some accomodations need to be made. And? This should hold especially when ... the religious institutions are taking public, government monies.

The example cited by Rug, begins to get at this double-sided aspect to religious freedom, and federal monies.

The opt-out deal is more or less dead; the Church refused it. Unless it takes it back, then probably the implied deal finally offered by O'Bama, will be something like this: accept compromises. First to honor the religious beliefs of others. Or, more severely: supply reproductive services ... or else lose government funding. And/or be sued for religious discrimination.

Indeed, your objection is good: the government cannot supply a particular religion with monies, if that disproportionately strengthens that religion and its beliefs (in this case, against reproductive services), over and against other religions.

This is how me and some others are trying to frame this issue at the moment. Many aspects of it seem supported by the administration. And even by key elements of the church. For complicated reasons.

But mostly our intention indeed, is precisely to take objections like your own into account: the government cannot give money to a religion per se. If we give it to a religious hospital ... then that hospital must then serve ALL religions and their beliefs. Not just their own. So that? A "Catholic" hospital, that accepts government funds, must supply contraceptive services.

And oddly enough? There is actually Catholic magisterial language that allows this, too. Though that's another subject.

Sorry for making this all seem so complicated. It's still being worked out. But parts of this seem to be ... having some influence.