Mr. Timothy Parker: First, in the article (that was published Feb. 29, 2012), you wrote, “The rest of us will not be dictated to by either a bishop in New York or the Bishop in Rome.”
That is not the case. No Catholic is dictating to you that you cannot obtain birth control. They are simply saying you cannot obtain birth control at a Catholic institution (today), and “we do not want that to change.”
The issue is not about birth control, either. The immediate issue is, “can the government mandate Catholic organizations to supply birth control?”
The issue may be considered to be “religious freedom,” but we must be careful when we bandy those words around. I think it’s a completely different issue.
As to your arguments about polygamy, and your other examples, I agree with you, I don’t think “anything goes,” with a defense of “it’s my religious belief.” Someone could try to use that as a defense for animal sacrifice, or even human sacrifice. We have to think, and put parameters around what is acceptable (for America), and what is not.
As to the polygamy argument, this, from the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States: “The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.”
It is interesting that President Obama, after public clamor, compromised on the issue. (There is some argument on whether or not the compromise is acceptable to some, but that is a different argument). I do not think that President Obama compromised based on some bishop’s protest; as I said, I believe it was due to public opinion.
The central issue appears to me to be what are the limits of our government
Many feel the government went too far” in this issue, and crossed a line it should not have. With the President’s quick reaction, it appears the government may have crossed the line unthinkingly, (if true, again, a whole ‘nother discussion).
In my opinion it is our duty — John Adams said, “we should all be statesmen” — it is our duty to “call out” the government if our personal liberties are threatened. From my reading, Thomas Jefferson felt the same way (he said essentially, “safeguard against tyranny,” which may be too strong of a word in this case).
One other thing: you suggest if the “religious organizations cannot follow the law … they should confine themselves to their core institutions where they may claim shelter.”
Well, first, this law appears (to some) to be “bad law,” so folks are protesting to try to have it over-turned. Second, these “extra-curricular activities” are doing a whole lot of good, especially for the poor; if the institutions close their doors, who will pick up the slack? Not the government, I hope …
“Madam, a Republic, if you can keep it.” — Benjamin Franklin (in response to “What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”)
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” — Wendell Phillips
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” — Ronald Reagan
Frank Pepper
(a Presbyterian in)
Fayetteville, Ga.
