Freedom of Conscience - the Foundational Freedom
Fans of Norman Rockwell know many of his paintings whether they lived during WWII or not. One of my favorites is Freedom of Speech, which shows a man speaking at a town hall meeting with others respectfully listening.
It’s our system at its best – in Troy our new mayor expanded the public comment section of council meetings to five minutes regardless of how many speakers there are. A soft-spoken man spoke in favor of the transit center because it would be good for bicyclists. Frequent critics who are fixtures are also listened to with respect.
Of course, all is not rosy. Former presidents are normally silent when they disagree with current ones, but not so former mayors. Our current mayor was criticized by a former one for changing the oath of office, accusing her of disrespect for her predecessors and the city charter. When Mayor Daniels offered a reasonable explanation later in the meeting, then came the deafening but not golden silence. Daniels also cautioned one flame-thrower that there might be children listening at home, to please keep his content family-friendly.
FDR’s four freedoms, immortalized by Norman Rockwell, got me thinking about the ordered liberty we enjoy here, going back to our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It’s ironic that FDR only got one of the four exactly right. His second freedom is properly understood as freedom of religion, not freedom of worship as he and current liberals believe. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to persuade others to join you as taught by Jesus in the Bible. Government must restrain those who would kill family members for changing their religion. Freedom of worship is more limited – it’s OK as long as you keep it to yourself and out of the public square.
The third, freedom from want, is nice but not within the proper sphere of government to provide. Safety net, yes, and help for those who cannot provide for themselves. But to encourage people to be dependent on government food stamps is to rob them of the joy of earning their own bread.
The fourth, freedom from fear, is understandable given the WWII era, but no way can government deliver on that one. Government can and should provide justice and punishment for evildoers but only God can give freedom from fear.
So what is the foundational freedom? I believe it is freedom of conscience: to have one’s own convictions, as long as they don’t interfere with someone else’s life, liberty or property (a modern translation of pursuit of happiness).
The Supreme Court is deeply divided between conservatives and liberals, yet its 9-0 January ruling thundered in favor of religious liberty in the case of a Lutheran church and school having the freedom to preach and teach its religious distinctives. So it seems odd that President Obama ignored the advice of many of his advisors and allowed HHS Secretary Sibelius to require all religious employers except churches to provide abortion and contraception coverage.
The very people that cry “get out of my bedroom” are going one step further: forcing Christians and others who have moral objections to abortion and some forms of contraception to pay for it. Knowing that it will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court, Obama plunged ahead. I can’t think of any benign reasons for this decision, other than maybe he really thinks he knows better how we should live than we do.
The most likely possibility: he’s building support with his liberal base to get donations for his reelection campaign. Sure enough, he modified the policy Friday to appear conciliatory with the Catholic church and try to regain their support. More than three dozen religious and legal experts led by Notre Dame Law School recognized this “accommodation” as a cheap accounting trick, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is not convinced.
Meanwhile his base will contribute to his campaign and be enthusiastic about him as the transformational figure they were hoping for. Most Americans like our country the way it is, except we’d like to get back to work.
If he behaves this way when he’s trying to get reelected, what will happen during the next four when he has no reason to curry favor with the voters?
America has always accommodated minority views, like the Amish who choose not to drive cars because of their deeply held religious convictions: cars can hurt or kill people, which contradicts their pacifist Christian views. No one objects to that, and we allowed them to serve their country in other ways when there was a draft.
We can all learn from the guidelines the apostle Paul gave to the Christians in Rome about how to live in harmony with others holding opposite views (Romans 14).
Forcing Catholic hospitals to pay for insurance coverage for contraception and the morning after pill is the moral equivalent of forcing the Amish to buy cars. It’s another reason why Americans of all beliefs should reject President Obama’s bid for a second term.
Calan
8:45 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
First and foremost, the mandate DOES NOT REQUIRE anyone to provide funding for an abortion, unless you think a woman taking the pill is equal to abortion.
Second, it is interesting to me that much of this discussion about the birth control mandate is framed in religious freedom and more so that you would choose that verse to frame your opinion.
"Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him."
I would assume that if a catholic organization employes only good catholics, no employee would ever use any form of birth control? So this is a non issue right? I worked for a jewish family for about a year, during that time I had many meals that were paid for by my Jewish employer, rarely did I eat kosher--I like bacon too much. Despite the fact that they observed Kosher Laws for themselves, they understood that their non-jewish employees did not, and they respected that each of us could live our lives on a different path then their own. With that respect also came the knowledge that at times they still had a responsibility for our well being, even if that meant providing non-kosher meals to employees.
I, despite being from a Catholic family, think that many of the religious objections that have been raised to this mandate are petty, selfish and shortsighted and show a great ignorance/hypocrisy for the issue at hand. -cont'd-
Calan
9:18 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
On one hand everyone wants the right to their one religious beliefs and to promote those beliefs, yet on the other hand, we all have to get along with each other. Is it appropriate for a Muslim employer to expect a christian employee to participate in daily prayers at the local mosque? Is it appropriate for a christian employer to expect a jewish employee to go to communion? Is it appropriate for a catholic employer to expect that no employee would every use birth control?
I feel very strongly that each and everyone of us should have the freedom of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, but I also feel that my freedoms end where yours begin and vice versa, not unlike Romans 14. I, personally, agree with this mandate, I think birth control pills should be free, I personally think that the more birth control pills taken and the less unplanned pregnancies that occur the fewer instances we will have of people going on welfare, collecting food stamps, and ultimately living off of my tax dime; I also feel that fewer unplanned pregnancies equals less abortions, lower rates of child abuse and a general higher quality of life for many people who would have otherwise found themselves unprepared and unable to care for a child properly.
So can we really have our cake and eat it too? So should those who abstain from the pill condemn those that take the pill? I feel that each of us should determine our own destiny, and I think this mandate frees many to determine thier own.
Dale Murrish
12:57 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Pragmatism over principle can lead to tyranny if unchecked. The diverse opinions held by Americans keep any one faction from gaining control. That’s the genius of our system of government; we have the longest-lasting constitution of any country on the planet. The built-in checks and balances guarantee our republic’s best chance of survival.
Maybe those who think free contraception should be available to all should donate to a fund to provide it to those who can’t afford it. This would be better than spending money lobbying the government to force everyone to pay for it when some have a moral objection.
Several years ago a lady in a store commented to me angrily about another lady’s fur coat. I replied that I couldn’t get too worked up about fur while we’re killing babies with abortion. The first lady is free not to buy fur coats and to convince her fellow women that fur is evil. She’s even free to picket furriers, but not to sabotage them. To have the government force her to buy a fur coat, violating her conscience, would be absurd but it’s exactly what’s happening to some pro-life Muslims, Christians, and atheists through this ruling.
Dale Murrish
1:08 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a leader in the eugenics movement which believes that certain lives are more valuable than others. That pragmatic thinking played out with horrific consequences in WW2 and is alive today with a higher percentage of abortion clinics in low-income neighborhoods.
Pro-life people are also pro-handicapped, pro-elderly, anti-poverty and anti-child abuse, not just in love with fetuses as some would portray it. They also volunteer themselves rather than compelling others to pay for it. In many cases they refuse government assistance. Some, not all, pro-life people are also opposed to some forms of contraception; different people have different views.
You’re right that not all Catholics are offended by this ruling, but some are. Few of those who abstain from the pill are condemning those who take it. Every thinking person should be concerned at the government forcing everyone to buy a product that goes against their moral convictions. Where will it stop? Will vegetarians be forced to buy meat? Will Jews and Muslims be forced to buy pork?
Calan
11:22 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Government should exist for the greater good, and it is true that sometimes that vision is misguided. Your example of eugenics is a prime example of that. While Margaret Sanger was a big proponent of eugenics, her thinking tho, was not much different then a majority of this country in the early 1900's. In fact, 30 states enacted some form of eugenics laws over the years and the SCOTUS upheld at least one of those laws. Our own laws and programs for eugenics in the US were cited as the basis for Hitler's eugenics programs including Harry Laughlin's model legislation for eugenics that was passed in 18 US States. Thousands of, if not hundreds of thousands of US citizens were sterilized because of OUR eugenics laws. Unfortunately, there are those still in this country that believe in eugenics in one way or another.
I think cherry picking Margaret Sanger out for your example is a bit of an under-share, because she may have been a vocal supporter speaking out in favor of it, but she was only one voice in a story that had millions of supporters going back as far as Alexander Graham Bell when he advocated deaf people being barred from marrying each other in the 1880's. The only reason you bring her up is because of Planned Parenthood, I think.
I also feel this example doesn't relate to the issue at hand, tho, I think Cherry Picking Does. Every day decisions are made in our nation for the greater good, at least that is the hope.
Calan
11:37 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
When resources are pooled for that good, not every person is going to agree with every position--such are the pitfalls of democracy. I for one felt very strongly that we should not go to war in Iraq for many reasons including fiscal responsibility. By your examples of "tyranny" I was forced to pay for a war that was against my conscience. When war was authorized, I set my personal feelings and beliefs aside and began to do the things I felt I could do to support our troops 100%. Because at the end of the day, we are all in it together.
When an entity provides insurance, rates are based on what the group that entity insures actually uses. In theory if nobody that is insured in that group uses birth control, the entity did not provide or pay for any. Premiums & copays that individuals pay in first go to cover the services & products they have actually used before it is freed up to go other places (did anyone say profits?).
I think what every thinking person should be concerned about is so many not-for-profits are using more and more of their funds for politics & lobbying and less for their actual mission while enjoying tax free status.
As to why so many abortion clinics in poor areas--DEMAND--for some women paying for the pill is a luxury, but for that same woman an abortion is a necessity.
A professor of mine once mentioned in a lecture about poverty something like: women of means don't go to abortion clinics, the clinics come to them.