How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
Jake Tapper reports:
With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.
The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.
Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.
One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.
Using the jargon of accommodation is incorrect because it obscures the fact that in our country, religious freedom is a negative liberty. We are guaranteed that our religious practice is free from interference by others, up to and including President Obama. He has no more authority to "accommodate" my religious liberty than I have to "accommodate" his.
It's also worth noting the troubles caused by couching this as an HHS v. Catholic bishops issue. When an attack on religious liberty is accommodated, it hurts everyone. I couldn't give a flying fig if the Catholics sign off on this since it wouldn't protect individual conscience. This is not about Team Obama and Team Catholic working out a compromise. This is about an attack on religious liberty.
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '11
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
I think you're pointing out a very important distinction here. I worry that if "accomodations" are made, the issue will be dropped, and people will go back to sleep thinking that they won.
But the mandate will still exist and liberty is still threatened.
Oct '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
Indeed. We should be just as concerned about he religious liberty of - to use the Mickey Kaus example - the Jewish butcher down the road.
This incident ought not to be just about liberty of Catholic institutions, or liberty of religion (although that part of the First Amendment is a handy stick with which to beat the government) or even liberty of conscience, but liberty tout court.
There would be nothing more dangerous to liberty than some finely crafted compromise letting the government decide who deserved to qualify for a "conscience exception". Might as well nationalize the Church now.
Just like repealing Obamacare, rolling this back needs to be the beginning, not the end.
Mar '11
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
That's a good catch, Mollie. But you have to understand Obama's dilemma. Negative rights interfere with fundamental transformation. Being the socialist president of a constitutional republic is hard.
Aug '11
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
Marco Rubio at CPAC:
Mar '11
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
Yes!
Dec '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
I guess I'm just being accomodated every time I am not searched without a warrant or come home to a house free of quartered soldiers.
Nov '11
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
DrewInWisconsin: I think you're pointing out a very important distinction here. I worry that if "accomodations" are made, the issue will be dropped, and people will go back to sleep thinking that they won.
But the mandate will still exist and liberty is still threatened. · 0 minutes ago
It might be that way -- I hope not. But even if he backs down, he has raised the question -- what would he do in a second term, with no reelection campaign to worry about?
If there are people who have finally woken up to the way this administration thinks through this issue, it may be hard for Obama to blind them again -- especially since it sounds as though the "accommodation" is utterly unconvincing and shows no understanding of the real concern.
Nov '11
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
genferei
Indeed. We should be just as concerned about he religious liberty of - to use the Mickey Kaus example - the Jewish butcher down the road.
This incident ought not to be just about liberty of Catholic institutions, or liberty of religion (although that part of the First Amendment is a handy stick with which to beat the government) or even liberty of conscience, but liberty tout court.
There would be nothing more dangerous to liberty than some finely crafted compromise letting the government decide who deserved to qualify for a "conscience exception". Might as well nationalize the Church now.
Exactly, and I am afraid that point is not being made often enough. Religious liberty is my right as an individual, not the right of a "religious organization." Is it somehow appropriate for the government to require me to violate my conscience, so long as I work a secular job?
Edited on February 10, 2012 at 4:12pmDec '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: ...
When an attack on religious liberty is accommodated, it hurts everyone. I couldn't give a flying fig if the Catholics sign off on this since it wouldn't protect individual conscience. This is not about Team Obama and Team Catholic working out a compromise. This is about an attack on religious liberty.
Sorry, Mollie, I think that's too narrow. It's an attack on freedom of conscience. You don't have to be Catholic, or Lutheran, or a believer of any kind to object to abortifacients, for example. And why should chaste men and women be paying for "benefits" in their health plans from which they'll never benefit? Or sterilized or infertile couples -- why should they be paying premiums to subsidize someone else's sterilization? For that matter, how about gay couples? And how is it that insurance companies are forced by government to offer benefits of any kind?
Speaking of which, where is the threshold for high crimes and misdemeanors? When the man who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States repeatedly and audaciously ;-) violates that oath, what's it gonna take to cross that line?
Jun '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
The universe of "bitter clingers" was a lot larger than they ever imagined.
Jun '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
You are right about the "accommodation" language. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, we make "accommodations" for the disabled (e.g., wheelchair ramps, elevator numbering in braille, and the like). An accommodation is a formal effort to allow someone whose physical condition is out of the norm to function within reasonable limits as others do. For the most part, it is a good, kind thing to do. [Though I'm sure there are "accommodations" out there that are ridiculous].
But "freedom of religion" or, as WC aptly puts it, "freedom of conscience" are not disabilities to be accommodated. They are not shortcomings to be remedied by the kind hand of government. They are rights guaranteed by the Constitution and, in my view, by the fundamental laws of God. They need no accommodation--all they need is the protection to which they are entitled.
Thus, we should, at all costs, avoid a narrative that suggests that religious Americans feel they have been accommodated by government.
Edited on February 10, 2012 at 4:34pmDec '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
Mollie,
You are right on it now. I've been talking to Adam about this for a while. The very first Clause of the first amendment should be called the Religion Clause. It should be divided into two phrases. The Establishment Phrase and The Free Exercise Phrase. These two phrases are meant to offset each other. You know, checks and balances, the hallmark of the American Constitution. Exercise is meant to balance Establishment. Establishment is maintaining religious liberty by supressing all religion. Exercise maintains religious liberty by protecting all religion.
For over 100 years Marxist inspired left wingers have been hiding behind the Establishment Phrase. They push it exclusively because they wish to destroy religion completely. What we must do is counter attack by using the Free Exercise Phrase. This will be a religious broad based approach. Every faith that is serious in this country will have a stake in Victory! It is exactly this issue that you are looking for in your post. When the government either passes a law or interprets a law in a fashion which egregiously makes the practice of religion virtually impossible then Free Exercise must be invoked.
(cont.)
Dec '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
(cont. from #12)
In addition to the fact that the two phrases of the first Clause are a check and balance to each other, something else should be noted.
The Religion Clause (Establishment & Exercise together) is the First enumerated Right of the Bill of Rights. This is no accident! The founding fathers are obviously placing this first because it is a Primary Right. I am a Kantian so I have the inside track but Kant is writing during the exact same period as the founders are writing the Constitution. It is no surprise for a Kantian that the Religion Clause is placed first. The first Postulate of the MetaEthics is that of Gd. Kant is saying specifically that you can not make an Ethics work without a single transcendental Gd as it's foundation. This is why The Religion Clause is the Primary Right of the Bill of Rights.
LET'S PICK THE FLAG UP OUT OF THE MUD AND ATTACK!!!
Regards,
Jim
Sep '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
Why is any of this necessary? Since when has birth control been so expensive that you needed to ship money to an insurance company, have them take a cut and then ship it to a pharmacy to pay for condoms which cost about 25 cents each? The surgical procedures and pills being covered are relatively cheap and are only necessary to cover voluntary behaviors. Since when does every insurance policy everywhere have to cover things like this?
This is insane.
Oct '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
"[A]ccomodation" and "religious accomodation" is the wording used in the amendments to the interim final regulations (PDF) from July last year.
Sep '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
And by the way, let's call this what it is. It's fascism. It's the religion of the State simply crushing anything that opposes it even in the tiniest way.
Obama is a Juan Peron fascist.
Jun '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
K T Cat: Why is any of this necessary? Since when has birth control been so expensive that you needed to ship money to an insurance company, have them take a cut and then ship it to a pharmacy to pay for condoms which cost about 25 cents each? The surgical procedures and pills being covered are relatively cheap and are only necessary to cover voluntary behaviors. Since when does every insurance policy everywhere have to cover things like this?
This is insane. · 2 minutes ago
They (the Obama team) thought they could win both at class warfare, and religious warfare. Between the two wedge issues, they could redefine both Romney and Santorum as out of the mainstream. But with religion, they went a bridge too far.
Sep '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
Leigh Is it somehow appropriate for the government to require me to violate my conscience, so long as I work a secular job? · 43 minutes ago
Edited 39 minutes ago
I have been wondering this as well. If the owner of a restaurant or car dealership happens to be a devout Catholic, is it okay to force him to purchase a health plan that covers contraception? Is he not protected under the 1st ammendment in this scenario?
Aug '11
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
That the White House is now considering accommodations means they realize they went too far, but need to save face, so they're going to put on a cloak of magnanimity.
Now is the time to press the issue forward until this silly mandate is utterly destroyed. Obamacare Delenda Est!
Oct '10
Re: How Do You 'Accommodate' Religious Liberty?
I wouldn't be surprised if this came as a surprise to them. Everyone believes in women's health, don't they? And it says in the law there will be some compulsory women's health coverage. They put out some regulations for comment, and some comments came back that a religious exemption was needed. They looked at what the (good, blue) states did and used the same exemption language. How could anyone disagree?
But something has changed. A spectre is haunting America - the spectre of Liberty. All the Powers of the old establishment have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: the President and his Czars, Reid and Pelosi, Eastern liberals and their Media echo-chamber. (With apologies to Karl.)