Because of the volume?of email I have received on this Chicago Tribune column, I am posting some of the comments below. These comments--which came to me directly in email at dennis@dennisbyrne.net--are in addition to the many comments posted on the Tribune site under my column, at?http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0207-byrne-20120207,0,3249104.column.
When James Madison, the "father of the Constitution" originally proposed that the Bill of Rights contain a clause to protect religious freedom, he saw it as more than simply a wall between church and state. His draft language included a strict ban on government infringement "in any manner, or on any pretence" on "the full and equal rights of conscience."
The final language of the First Amendment and many ensuing court cases have somewhat fogged that original meaning, focusing instead on preventing organized religion from imposing its views on the body politic. As it should.
But if you ask Americans if they have a free-conscience right to practice their religion in any way they please, most would say for sure, Constitution or no. Don't ask that in the?White House?though. The Obama administration has launched an unprecedented and stunning assault on freedom of conscience and religion.
Most spectacular is the Obama administration's view that religious organizations have no greater right to hire or fire their own ministers than secular organizations have over their leaders. The Supreme Court, usually closely divided, found the administration's argument so preposterous that it unanimously ruled it unconstitutional.
More recently, on Jan. 20, the Obama administration finalized regulations that force employers, including Catholic and other religious institutions, to provide insurance that covers?birth control, without deductibles or co-pays, to its employees in hospitals, charitable organizations, social-service agencies and universities. Because prescription contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients (chemicals that effectively kill a fertilized egg) violate their teachings and consciences, Catholic and other churches have loudly objected. Some declared they wouldn't comply, setting up a major constitutional fight.
Read the rest of this column on the Chicago Tribune op-ed page.
The readers get their turn:
Dear Mr. Byrne,
Your recent article referencing religious freedom as described in the Bill of Rights (State must remain out of matters of the church, Chicago Tribune, February 7, 2012) might better have been titled ?Church must remain out of matters of the State.? You are totally incorrect in interpreting the First Amendment. Religions should not impose their views on the ?body public.? Equally inaccurate and misleading is your venomous discourse, naturally lacking appropriate facts, that ?The Obama administration has launched an unprecedented and stunning assault of freedom of conscience and religion.? Where do you get these ideas? Do you have trouble sleeping at night?
What are the facts regarding the new health insurance law?s federal funding for abortion, or lack of it? (1) The law says individuals who get federal subsidy dollars must use their private money to pay for coverage of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The same rules apply to Medicaid coverage for low-income persons and to the insurance available to federal workers and military families. The new law specifically states that only personal money be used to pay for coverage of other kinds of abortions. Claims that the new law will lead to a large increase in the number of abortions lack support. (2) President Obama reaffirmed a federal ban on funding of abortion (as stated in the 1976 Hyde Amendment). In addition, the secretary of Health and Human Services and the director of the Office of Management and Budget must develop within 180 days guidelines for states to use to determine whether insurance companies are properly following those separation-of-money requirements for plans purchased with the help of subsidies. Individuals won?t start buying insurance through the exchanges until 2014.
Concerning the issue of contraception, if you can identify ?radical secularists? as you categorize them, chances are good that they are religious conservatives. The political right needs such brain-dead individuals to support the true issue of the party, care for the 1%.???I suspect that what some religious leaders fear about the widespread use of contraception is that there will be fewer children available to sodomize.
Perhaps you will find interesting reading our Treaty of Peace with Tripoli (ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797). Article XI of the treaty?explicitly?declares ?that ?the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,? or on any other religion. -A.N.
Mr. Byrne: It seems many of your readers are getting confused with the concept of control vs. paying. The Church cannot control its employees?use of contraception etc. and in fact your readers correctly point out that many practicing Catholics engage in the use of these. The Church as a matter of conscience however,?should not have to?facilitate?practices its well defined and long standing?dogma deems immoral by paying for them. Seems pretty simple to me! -RPK
When a family has more children than they can afford because their?religious institution?doesn?t approve of birth control, let?s have that religious institution pay the family?s welfare benefits, instead of the government.? Then they can opt out of any coverage they deem inappropriate to their faith. ??Oh, and while we?re at it, let?s stop giving them a free tax ride on the billions of dollars they take in.?It?s absurd and irresponsible to say that secularists want to impose their beliefs on the religious.? Nothing could be further from the truth. -K.W.
Dennis:?Let me preface this correspondence with the fact that I am a practicing?Roman Catholic?from a big Irish Catholic family.??However, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the state has no role in asking, let alone demanding,?a for-profit wing of the Church to follow federal law.? The federal government is not asking/demanding that the Church and its'?followers bow to their laws.? The federal government is asking/demanding a?private, for-profit?wing of the non-profit, tax-free Church who receives payment in the form of federal tax dollars (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) not to prevent a free individual from having the option of contraception in their insurance coverage.?The issue is not?abortion?or contraception.? The issue is keeping the Church from trumping public policy and forcing their beliefs on Catholic and non-Catholic employees who freely choose to use contraception.? Abortion is a legal procedure, like it or not.? The separation of the Church and state is a sacred American treasure.??You don't have to have an abortion or use contraception, Dennis.? Nor does your wife.? But, as a person who lives in a very real world, I thank the same God we mutually worship in the same Church that abortion is safe, legal, and rare.?I only wish the journalistic acolytes of the Vatican would use one-tenth of their energy focusing on poverty and hunger - period.? It will do more to make abortion rare. ?Instead, we keep reading articles about a red herring in abortion which is legal and will never be illegal.? At least not over my dead body.??I don't believe in abortion, but I cannot take that choice of a medical procedure away from a woman in a free society.? Please, re-read the underlined, understand it, digest it, and appreciate that it is the essence of freedom (tolerance).?Your headline was crafty... I will give you that.? It drew me in.?May you and your family have a good rest of the winter and a pleasant St. Patrick's Day season! -T.M.
Dear Dennis,
I read your article, "State must remain out of matters of church", and as you know you claimed that offering?birth control?would conflict with church freedoms.? But as I'm sure others will point out is that this is only a choice.? Birth control isn't mandatory.? It should be the other way around; not offering birth control would allow the church and religion to dictate public policy.? I think you should stop relying on fuzzy math.? Thanks. -A.W.
Mr. Byrne:I feel you have mis-characterized and mis-applied Constitutional arguments in your zealotry to defend the indefensible:? that an employer has an inalienable right to enforce religious beliefs and practices upon their secular employees.Let me tell you of a real concern which may threaten my husband's life.? He has a condition called MGUS.? It entails an increased risk of developing cancer.? He is under care of an oncologist, who tests him regularly to check for the development of this cancer.? He has worked at the same privately-owned company for?over twenty years, and hisemployer-sponsored health?insurance is (thank heavens!) covering this very expensive testing, including the bone-marrow biopsies he has received.? (Three, so far, all clear).?Here lies the problem:? In the last couple of years, the company owner's wife has converted to the Jehovah's Witness religion, and I am told, has converted her husband as well.? This religion, among its many tenets,?absolutely forbids the use of blood transfusions, even to save life.? Should my husband develop cancer, his treatment would include the use of transfusion, specfically of bone marrow.? Does my husband's employer have the right to deny coverage for this lifesaving?transfusion, specifically prohibited by their religious beliefs??Of course, one could argue that my husband has a perfect right to pay for these transfusions out of his own pocket.? This would bankrupt us, as anyone who has faced catastrophic illness will tell you.I love my husband with all my heart, and hate that he is going through so much pain and uncertainty.? Why are you advocating a policy that could add to his pain and uncertainty, or take his life if we cannot raise the money to combat this disease on our own?"State must remain out of matters of the church"? Indeed, the churches must remain out of the affairs of state, or we will all suffer.Respectfully, -S.L.
