Look at the picture included here. The picture is of a magnet that can be seen on cars all over the Fox Valley. Note the bold message. “RELIGIOUS LIBERTY” “LIVE IT! PROTECT IT!” Who wouldn’t want to promote a message like that? Not having religious liberty would mean you live in either a theocracy or a hard-line, totalitarian state. Neither option is attractive. I would gladly promote that message on my car. I often do promote the right to believe anything one feels compelled to ... be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Scientology, Mormonism, any of the myriad religions people might subscribe to, or no religion at all.
Now look a little closer at that magnet. Notice the Christian crosses portrayed at the top and bottom. There is even a cross replacing the torch in the hand of Lady Liberty herself. OK ... Now THAT makes me uncomfortable ... and rather sad. To me, involving Lady Liberty with a specific religion betrays a profound misunderstanding of what religious liberty is and how we come to have it ... and that misunderstanding seems both widespread and actively cultivated by some factions.
Let’s first look at the torch. According to the National Park Service website, the question of “What does the torch represent?” is answered with: “The torch is a symbol of enlightenment. The Statue's official name represents its most important symbol, ‘Liberty Enlightening the World.’ “ [emphasis mine] [ref]. According to Merriam-Webster, “[The] Enlightenment” is defined as: “a philosophic movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism” [emphasis mine]
I recognize that my take on Lady Liberty may not be a convincing argument for those sporting these magnets. Many believe that the United States is, at its core, a “Christian Nation." I suggest that many confuse “Christian Tradition” with “Christian Founding”.
We are, in reality, a secular nation by design. If you are going to read one book on our Founding Fathers and religious liberty; pick up Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America by Steven Waldman [link] (it's also available through our local library system). In it, he profiles each founder with their own chapter and covers their stands on religion and how they felt it should be reflected in our founding documents. It is quite even-handed and also enlightening to “witness” the debates about what the relationship our new nation would have with Christianity. To be sure, there were very devout Christians in the ranks of our Founders, but Deists, agnostics and even [by today standards] non-theists [a.k.a. atheists ] were well represented. Waldman’s history also fascinates. We learn how many of the colonies effectively self-segregated into mini-theocracies with abysmal results with regard to religious liberty. Depending on where you lived in colonial times, you might not get more than a stern talking to if you murdered a “Papist” (a.k.a. Catholic ... Consider the irony as you read further.)
The founders recognized that religious governance was a failure. In the end, our founding documents are devoid of religious reference in any meaningful sense but supportive of individual religious choice and included the [then unheard of] gem “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This was further supported four years later with (among other things) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” in the First Amendment.
It was clear in the heads of our founders and early legislators that there was a “wall of separation” between church and state and in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli (a peace treaty with, what we now know as, Libya) included the unambiguous line “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
This blog is an inadequate venue to list and deconstruct all the court rulings and federal documents that have clearly established the United States as a secular nation. Sometimes progress is made in clarifying and strengthening that precept (i.e. eliminating state sponsored prayer in schools and removing religious monuments from government buildings). Sometimes we backslide (i.e. Dwight Eisenhower, influenced by Billy Graham, inserting “Under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance and replacing “E Pluribus Unum” with “In God We Trust” on much of our currency during the paranoid hysteria of the McCarthy Era.)
So ... back to the magnets ...
As near as I can tell, these magnets are the brainchild of the Rockford Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church [ref] in the wake of the Affordable Care Act’s recently instituted provision of free, contraception [ref]. This kerfuffle resurrected the fear-mongering “War On Religion” campaign which gets pulled from its quiver (with increasing frequency) when the religious majority doesn’t get everything they want. [Can a group call themselves “persecuted” if they are, ostensibly, the majority of the population and lawmakers?]. This seems a go-to tactic and I had written on the this previously [here]. In a nutshell, Americans receive “health care” as defined by the medical and scientific communities. Americans do not receive “Catholic Health Care." Religious organizations should have zero expectation of defining what health care is and is not.
While I thought it unnecessary; the White House capitulated and removed any intimation that the religious institutions would, in any way, subsidize contraception and asked that insurance companies absorb that cost in its entirety. Insurance companies, in less than a heartbeat, agreed given that it costs far more to cover a pregnant woman than a non-pregnant woman. Some of the most devout Catholics that I know were fully appeased. There seemed a brief pause as the Vatican pondered [what appeared to most of the world as] the “Check Mate” move by the White House. The Catholic Church ... unsatisfied ... doubled down and effectively said, “We aged, celibate men still have more to say about women’s sexuality and we will continue to speak until our position is recognized in legislation!” And so the imaginary “War On Religion” continues.
So let’s be clear on this and establish some basic and cogent facts:
One: There is no religious adherent that is asked or pressured into changing their beliefs or opinions on the morality of contraception.
Two: Nobody (religious or not) is, in any way, forced or pressured into utilizing contraception.
Three: No exclusively religious institution is mandated to provide contraception that they might be morally opposed to.
Four: No religious institution has any innate authority to impose their concept of sexuality, morality, or health care on anyone but their followers.
Five: No religious institution with employees of other faiths [or no faith] has any innate authority to impose their concept of sexuality, morality, or health care on those employees.
Six: Our Republic is not about enacting the will of the majority, but rather protecting the rights of the minority.
So to those of you with such magnets on your car, please consider what I have said here. Those magnets are wrong on a number of levels. Please understand that it is antithetical for Lady Liberty to be associated with or seen promoting one faith (or non-faith) over another. Religious liberty is not something given to other faiths by Christianity. Lady Liberty and the secular state recognize all and elevate none.
So call off the “War on Religion” because it seems that there is only one side fighting it.
(Now ask me about the "War on Secularism"....)
Karen Schneider
3:11 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
Excellent post, Mike!
Jeff Ward
3:16 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
Mike,
I agree! My Monday Courier-News column explains that this nation isn't founded on freedom of religion as much as freedom from religion.
You can read my thoughts on it and link to the column on my blog:
http://thefirstward.net/2012/09/25/freedom-of-religion-also-means-freedom-from-religion/
Jeff
Maverick
9:57 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
You're a self-promoting dope
Mitotero
3:53 pm on Thursday, September 27, 2012
I agree 100% this time. Excellent post. I thought of a Sinclair Lewis quote as I looked the picture.
Mike Bruno
1:17 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Thanks all. I was hoping/expecting some pushback. I like to be challenged so I can discover my errors and refine my arguments. Can I assume that this one is bullet-proof? Share it with your Facebook peeps and maybe we can get someone to challenge my premise.
Rudy
8:45 am on Sunday, September 30, 2012
You can probably assume no one reads it Mike just saying.
Chuck
11:21 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Excellent overview of history & the pushing by the Right to impose their views/practices on everyone else.
TC
10:53 pm on Sunday, September 30, 2012
Excellent post and much needed in the Fox Valley.
Anne Cesarone
11:41 am on Monday, October 1, 2012
Thank you for your eloquent history lesson. I think I'll "recommend" it to quite a few people I know....
Scott Lang
12:30 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
Amen!
Matt K
12:31 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
Your analysis completely missed the point of the magnets. The Catholic Church does not want to be forced to offer contraception to its employees in its healthcare package. That’s it, but you did not state that. When you say “Americans do not receive Catholic Health Care”, you’re right – and Catholics are not asking for that, but you imply they are. Also, when you say, “religious organizations should have zero exception of defining what healthcare is and is not”, I would tend to agree – but again, Catholics are not asking for that, even though that is your implication. They DO have every right to define it inside their own organization. Simply put, they do not want to be forced into offering something that goes against a core belief. And on your point #5...why is it’s ok for government to impose their concept of sexuality, morality, or health care on religious organizations? That is what’s happening, and that is the essence of the meaning behind the magnets.
Mike Bruno
3:25 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
@Matt K:
I understand what you are trying to say and it gets us into some bizarreness of how, health care is delivered in the U.S..
To directly address your point; there is no "insurance policy" that the Catholic church is purchasing that even would have contraception written in as a line-item. If the purchased policy does not have contraception, then the insurance company--wholly separate from that policy--would cover contraception coverage. Obviously that gets blurry since it is one company handling all aspects of coverage. It really FEELS like you are buying contraception services, but you're not.
This points back to the weirdness of the U.S. providing health care via employers...which is pretty much unique in the world. (I wrote on it here: http://geneva.patch.com/blog_posts/mike-bruno-socialism-in-todays-politics) If we separated health care from employment like the rest of the industrialized world does, then this would be a non-issue.
Riddle me this: Whereas much health care is provided through employers. Whereas we, as a nation, have decided that contraception is a good thing to prevent unwanted pregnancies, reduce health care costs, reduce the number of children born into poverty and addiction, economically buoys poorer communities, etc.....
What solution might the church offer that would allow the U.S. to guarantee universal free contraception that wouldn't get their knickers in a bunch?
Matt K
4:43 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
I disagree when you say, "...there is no policy...that even would have contraception written in as a line-item...". Every policy purchased would now be forced to supply this by the government. Line item or not, its in the policy - by law! And the illusion it's "free" needs to stop. There is no free lunch. You'll pay for it in some other capacity. Do you really think the for-profit insurance companies are going to take a loss for the good of mankind? Ask a stockholder.
As for your question, it's not the Catholic Churchs' place to "guarantee universal free contraception". I could only assume that if insurance coverage is separated from employment, they would be fine with that. It just may be headed in that direction for employees of the Catholic Church anyway as the Church now faces a moral decision. The outcome may very well be they drop insurance coverage for all employees.
To back up a step, I disagree with the premis of your question. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution the "guaranteed" right to "universal free contraception". It's not that hard to come by...for little or no money already. Why force the Catholic Church to do it in addition to the thousands of other avenues (many free courtesy of the government) that exist to get contraception? The Catholic Church has already proposed a solution - abstenance. Wheather you agree or not with that, it's the belief of the Church and they are entitled to it. That is the fundamental issue behind the magnets.
Mike Bruno
10:01 am on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Where to start? Of course it is no constitutional guarantee for contraception. There are lots of things that we, as a society, elect to do that are not referenced in the Constitution. Of course it doesn't fall to the Catholic Church to guarantee contraception and I don't know why you would even turn my point that way.
Maybe if I phrase it differently: If the broader society has decided that contraception is a good thing, how could this be structured such that society gets contraception and the Catholic Church will not attempt to deny contraception to the rest of society?
Matt K
3:48 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
I don’t know how I “turn(ed) your point that way”. I merely answered your question. You used the words “guaranteed” and “free”, and I disagreed with those words. (In retrospect, I probably should not have referenced the Constitution, but I still stand by my underlying point.) As for your follow up, “how could this be structured such…the Catholic Church will not attempt to deny contraception to the rest of society?” It’s already happening. Who is the Catholic Church denying (or attempting to deny) contraception to now? Even if it's not covered in a Catholic sponsored health insurance plan, you can still buy it on your own. While they morally disagree, they are not denying their employees that liberty. You can buy condoms anywhere, get birth control pills from your doctor or Planned Parenthood for little or no cost, even schools in large cities are giving out contraception for free. Why is it necessary for the Catholic Church to sacrifice its beliefs – period…much less for a problem that doesn’t exist? As much as the perception is “the fear-mongering religious right” is forcing its views on everyone, in this case it’s the complete opposite. A social agenda is being forced on the Catholic Church.
Mike Bruno
4:03 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The U.S. wants to make zero-copay contraception available to everyone that might be inclined to use it. Cheap and widely available is not what we are discussing because a few dollars may not by much to you or me, but it is to others. The U.S. wants to contraception to be available with zero out of pocket cost everyone.
I will state my question again: Describe a way to do what I described that does not get Catholics' robes in a bunch.
Matt K
4:27 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
No, the U.S does not want to make zero copay contraception available. Someone with a left leaning agenda does. How can I answer a question that is based on an untrue premis? Even if the premis were true, I'll stand by my previous posts - it's already there. If people are not educated enough on where to get it, well...that can be the topic for your next column.
Mike Bruno
8:38 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Well, if you want to politicize it I don't know where else we can go. Political or not; it is the law of the land now. The Church needs to recognize that and figure out how they can co-exist. Nobody is being forced to use contraception against their will. Might I suggest that, if the semantics of insurance providers covering the cost is unsatisfactory, that the church merely offer a stipend to their employees so they can buy their own insurance?
Matt K
10:47 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
I'm not politicizing the argument, it already is. If you don't think this is a political argument, then I agree, I don't know where else we can go from here. I don't agree it's the "law of the land", but I firmly believe the Church has already figured out how to co-exist. They are doing it now. It's our government that is not co-existing with the Church. The separation of Church and State is not a one way street. I never said people were being forced to use contraception against their will. The Church however IS being forced to PROVIDE it against their will. That is what I disagree with. Your suggestion is fine, don't offer insurance, but offer a stipend to get whatever insurance you want. I have no problem with that. Might I suggest the proposed law be modified to exclude providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs? That's a real easy fix. If the US wants it as badly as you say since it's the "law of the land", the Church would have a hard time finding quality employees as a result of them not offering this benefit.
Matt K
1:03 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
Last your are wrong when you say Catholics are "...the majority of the population...". They are not. US Population = 310 million, US Catholics = 77 million - about 25%. You don't get a pass on that statistic by using the word "ostensibly". I would be interested in your sources when you make the same claim for "lawmakers". I can neither prove or disprove that, but I would be surprised if the "...majority of lawmakers" are Catholic.
Since Catholics are 25% of the population, your point #6 is spot on.
TC
1:11 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
I believe that the majority is referring to more than just Catholics, but Christians overall since it was part of the statement "This kerfuffle resurrected the fear-mongering “War On Religion” campaign which gets pulled from its quiver (with increasing frequency) when the religious majority doesn’t get everything they want". Christians are a majority which are in general trying to force their views (or those of small groups within that are disproportionately vocal) on everyone including non-Christians. This is a manufactured "war" by those vocal groups and the media, when in fact it's merely reasserting constitutional guidelines.
Mike Bruno
3:02 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
Todd is correct. I refer to the religious/Christians generally, not Catholics specifically. When writing it, I had the fleeting thought to be a bit more specific on that, but felt it was easily deducible from the context. That number, by the way, I think is grossly overstated if one were to really pick apart individual beliefs...but 80% seems the most common number thrown about, hence its inclusion here.
Matt K
2:54 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
I assumed that is what you intended, but then it's a fallacious argument. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your article was written on the meaning behind the magnets. The meaning comes from the Catholic Church. To immediately jump to the "religious majority" distorts the intent and meaning behind the impetus for the magnet. All Christians in the religious majority are not Catholic as there are wildly differing views among Christians. You claim the magnet is "...fear-mongering from the religious majority". It's not. The sentence before you clearly state it's the "brainchild of the Rockford Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church". So, write about the true intent from the source, not the perceived intent for justifying an argument.
Next time you see someone with the magnet, ask them if they are Catholic. My guess is they all say “yes”.
Mike Bruno
3:36 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Sorry, accidentally deleted my response to modify, but lost it. You should have received and e-mail notification with the content though, so I won't recreate the whole thing. I will re-post this hilarious take on religious persecution and the mythical war on religion : http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues---sean-hannity-s-holy-sausage-fest
Matt K
4:40 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Never got the e- mail. But just to be clear, I'm not claiming there is a "war on religion" - never did. The topic at hand - in my humble, guilt ridden Catholic souls opinion - bothers me greatly. I felt an obligation to chime in.
Mike Bruno
8:28 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
I am a recovering Catholic, so I know the guilt. I am OK with that guilt though. If everyone thought every problem was their own, then maybe more people would actually try to make things better without waiting for someone else to do it. That said; I don't think Catholics have the market cornered on guilt.
Mike Bruno
7:55 am on Saturday, October 6, 2012
FOLLOW UP: The magnets are a show of disdain for contraception. A new study shows that free contraception *dramatically* reduces abortions: http://nbcnews.to/SuUJiy Pick your poison, abortions or contraception?
Colin C.
9:20 am on Saturday, October 6, 2012
Also, Mike, so many who wish to outlaw abortion simply ignore the well demonstrated fact that passing a law will not halt the practice, it will simply cause a return to the illegal practice which will cost more lives.
The obvious answer, in light of the study that you cite, is to increase useful, honest, complete sex education (humans, including teens, will have sex, always have, always will), and easy, free access to contraception. That will reduce the need for abortion dramatically.
But then, why should we flout tradition and do something that actually makes sense?