Moyers writes: "The president did something agile and wise the other day. And something quite important to the health of our politics. He reached up and snuffed out what some folks wanted to make into a cosmic battle between good and evil."
Portrait, Bill Moyers. (photo: Robin Holland)
Freedom Of and From Religion
17 February 12
he president did something agile and wise the other day. And something quite important to the health of our politics. He reached up and snuffed out what some folks wanted to make into a cosmic battle between good and evil. No, said the president, we're not going to turn the argument over contraception into Armageddon, this is an honest difference between Americans, and I'll not see it escalated into a holy war. So instead of the government requiring Catholic hospitals and other faith-based institutions to provide employees with health coverage involving contraceptives, the insurance companies will offer that coverage, and offer it free.
The Catholic bishops had cast the president's intended policy as an infringement on their religious freedom; they hold birth control to be a mortal sin, and were incensed that the government might coerce them to treat it otherwise. The president in effect said: No quarrel there; no one's going to force you to violate your doctrine. But Catholics are also Americans, and if an individual Catholic worker wants coverage, she should have access to it - just like any other American citizen. Under the new plan, she will. She can go directly to the insurer, and the religious institution is off the hook.
When the president announced his new plan, the bishops were caught flat-footed. It was so ... so reasonable. In fact, leaders of several large, Catholic organizations have now said yes to the idea. But the bishops have since regrouped, and are now opposing any mandate to provide contraceptives even if their institutions are not required to pay for them. And for their own reasons, Republican leaders in Congress have weighed in on the bishops' side. They're demanding, and will get, a vote in the Senate.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, says:
The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion. It's right there in the First Amendment. You can't miss it, right there in the very First Amendment to our Constitution. And the government doesn't get to decide for religious people what their religious beliefs are. They get to decide that.
But here's what Republicans don't get, or won't tell you. And what Obama manifestly does get. First, the war's already lost: 98 percent of Catholic women of child-bearing age have used contraceptives. Second, on many major issues, the bishops are on Obama's side - not least on extending unemployment benefits, which they call "a moral obligation." Truth to tell, on economic issues, the bishops are often to the left of some leading Democrats, even if both sides are loathe to admit it. Furthermore - and shhh, don't repeat this, even if the president already has - the Catholic Church funded Obama's first community organizing, back in Chicago.
Ah, politics.
So the battle over contraception no longer seems apocalyptic. No heavenly hosts pitted against the forces of Satan. It's a political brawl, not a crusade of believers or infidels. The president skillfully negotiated the line between respect for the religious sphere and protection of the spiritual dignity and freedom of individuals. If you had listened carefully to the speech Barack Obama made in 2009 at the University of Notre Dame, you could have seen it coming:
The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem-cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships might be relieved. The question then is, "How do we work through these conflicts?
We Americans have wrestled with that question from the beginning. Some of our forebearers feared the church would corrupt the state. Others feared the state would corrupt the church. It's been a real tug-of-war, sometimes quite ugly. Churches and religious zealots did get punitive laws passed against what they said were moral and religious evils: blasphemy, breaking the Sabbath, alcohol, gambling, books, movies, plays ... and yes, contraception. But churches also fought to end slavery, help workers organize and pass progressive laws. Of course, government had its favorites at times; for much of our history, it privileged the Protestant majority. And in my lifetime alone, it's gone back and forth on how to apply the First Amendment to ever- changing circumstances among people so different from each other. The Supreme Court, for example, first denied, then affirmed, the right of the children of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse, on religious grounds, to salute the flag.
So here we are once again, arguing over how to honor religious liberty without it becoming the liberty to impose on others moral beliefs they don't share. Our practical solution is the one Barack Obama embraced the other day: protect freedom of religion - and freedom from religion. Can't get more American than that.
My thanks to Julie Leininger Pycior, professor of history at Manhattan College, for her insights and counsel on this essay
Veteran journalist Bill Moyers is the host of the upcoming show “Moyers & Company,” premiering January 2012. More at www.billmoyers.com.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 22 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 23 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 23 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Your wish to "Get religion out of our government" is OK, I suppose, but I'd rather "Get religion out of our pants!"
You wanna' create wild panic? A riot? A stampede?
Just yell the word "Priest" in a room full of Altar Boys.
When they fix their own REAL (sexual) problems, then - maybe -they can work on our IMAGINED problems.
There is a Scripture that basically says EXACTLY what yoo say here. A scripture that these Catholic Bishops seem to conviently ignore: Take the beam out of your own eye before you try to take the mote out of some one elses eye.
These Bishops are trying to rebuild the Catholic church by taking over Government and having us follow these hollow men who could care less about the Masses. If they did, they would, " Sell all of their Goods (Vatican wealth is enormous) give it to the poor and then they could pick up the cross and follow the teachings of the ONE they now deny.
But, then again they ARE the 1% as are so many of the "CHURCH" leaders.
As a caller into Diane Rehm said this morning, "Some religions forbid alcohol but we continue to allow drinking, suffer drunk driving accidents, spend money on finding drunk drivers."
We cannot consider every religious tenet a reason to formulate laws.
Iran is a country where laws are based on religion. Is that what we honestly want in our country?
eh? What about all the "freedoms" their
friggin' priests take with little boys?
They're all hipocrites!
Same thing applies to the "Protestants," as they protested against the symptoms instead of the brainwashing, which they took up and gleefully continue to this day.
And Gawd knows how many more in both houses are likewise affiliated.
O.D. was heavily involved in the recent coup in Honduras and it's now US-pleasing faux-democratic right wing crop of pretenders against the overwhelming will of the people.
I'll call the US a democracy when their senior elected officials and president can be voted into office with having to show some church affiliation, or at least be obliged to have the appearance of one.
No doubt we'll be stuck with such conflicts as the one Mr Moyers points out, for a long time to come and I actually kinda like the way Ob' handled it.
when he was in the 4th runner up. Now, that he's in 2nd place, he's rabid!
Thanks, Fredboy
It's about time that those two words were removed from the pledge and the national motto officially returned to E Pluribus Unum and do away with "In God We Trust" (everyone else pays cash).
Particularly those mesmerized or confused by the Tea Party candidates.
It would be highly appropriate to enlightent voters with this factual information and to inform them of how important it is to our freedom to keep religion and state separate.
However, I happen to agree with you that those words should be removed: Either we have freedom both OF AND FROM religion, or we don't have religious freedom at all.
DrBill is right -- it's time we got rid of the miasma of religiosity..
Can Obama do any better after his very disappointing first term as president & after betraying our constitutional right to due process?
We ALL must begin now to work doing whatever we can to ensure that President Obama has 4 more years to continue bailing us out of the crater that Bush built.
And a big P.S.: never ever, for absolutely any reason vote republican or fail to support the Democrat(ic)tic ket.
Big deal, they also perpetrated and justified slavery for centuries. They shouldn't get a don't get a gold star just for ceasing what they had been a party to all along.
,
There are those who believe that life is sacred, and further that the act that brings life into being is also sacred. Most others see sex as a right, a rite, an industry, and best enjoyed while intoxicated. Such enlightenment! that can make the emptiness of life seem almost palatable.
Lack of education in sexual matters is a very real problem today. Many times it is the religious girls who get pregnant and must learn "the facts of life" from friends, rather than parents.
Life truly is sacred, but most folks are NOT intoxicated while pursuing sexual instincts, thereby forgetting how sacred sex can be. After all, it has traditionally been men who eschewed anything having to do with the sacred, preferring to pursue women, who had no choice.
Admittedly, the term 'most' is vague, anywhere from close to a majority to upwards of 90%, and the target group is not delineated. So most can be one way or another and both are correct. Most people having sex between 18 to 30 likely have this 'devil may care' approach. How's that?
"People having sex between 18 to 30 who use a contraceptive devise to avoid an unwanted pregnancy or disease are unlikely to have a "devil may care approach" because they're acting responsibily by using precaution.
What nonsense. Provide some facts to back up your scurrilous statement. Your projections reveal far more about you than they do about the world.
Okay, for those who don't get out much, and if you're really serious, there is the sex industry, the night club scene, legalized prostitution, teenage sex attitudes, and this article on birth control pills. Did you really mean 'scurrilous'!? :)
Same ole same ole. It works, of course, but a lot of folks aren't falling for it quite like they might have 20 years ago.
Remember him? one of the Republicans along with Newt Gringrich who wants Terry Schaivo to be kept "alive" no matter what? The woman was functioning at brain stem level. Her husband just wanted to let her go, as she had discussed with him before she became this way. Her family with the backing of unidentified person or persons wanted her kept alive. Her husband won. An autopsy showed not only was she blind but that her brain had turned to mush. She was totally incapable of ever becoming a functioning human again. This brings up "Death Panels". Which the is government paying for us to legally put into writing our final wishes of what we want to happen to us if we are unable to do so in the future.
This takes the burden off of survivors and caregivers. This has also been blown out of proportion. To say "granny"
will be put to death for convenience of the government is ludicrous.
I agree with Barbara K. NEVER vote Republican . One final note, my 22 year old granddaughter thinks that all girls between the ages of 13 and 25 should be required by law to take birth control. She has seen, at her age, too many young lives ruined by pregnancy. and too many neglected children.
If they really wanted to exempt themselves from federal requirements they find offensive, they'd stop accepting federal support for their hospitals and so forth. Don't hold your breath waiting, though.
Some years ago the fundamentalist Bob Jones University faced a roughly similar problem: it had a decades-old "scripture-based" policy banning interracial dating, which, it was told,. It would have to give up or lose its tax-exempt status. As usual, money talked and “scripture” went out the window. The bishops, though, demand that the government bend the knee and kiss the ring.
Good one!
Without bogging down this comment in religious dogma, penitant Christianity runs parallel to the Sermon on the Mount in tone and substance; triumphalist Christianity is the traditional retributive, punitive brand of New Testament hellfire and brimstone, aimed at the "God-fearing" simpleton.
We could argue this until the cows come home with the chickens, but the point is that penitance is a good, humane, inclusive vibe, and triumphalism is the antithesis. People who are force-fed the latter brand tend to be stupid, or at least ignorant, bigoted, angry, easily led and manipulated, indifferent to facts or science, and convinced of their moral self-righteousness and superiority to others, including Christians who don't see things their way.
On the other side, you've got United Church of Christ, the Sojourners, Episcopalians, who champion racial and ethnic diversity, inclusiveness, tolerance, social justice, equal rights, and so forth. I am not a Christian, but these are my kind of Christians. When Jim Wallis writes something, I'm moved by it, it has a positive impact on my thinking. When Santorum speaks: Mute Button. Where is the penitant Christian candidate?
This dogma is just a pretense of dismantling our constitution and civil rights and should be looked upon as treason. I don't see many of them waiting in adoption lines for thousands still in foster care or those living in poverty and denied the benefits of the rich and powerful at the top who pass such laws.
Some also fought to keep it, as they found it to be the normal order of things. White Protestant churches in the South, even in the 1950s and 1960s, often opposed integration and advances in civil rights.
But, I reject all-male (and thus, non-representative) hierarchies propagandizing religious liberty in formal taxpayer-funded testimonies at government institutions like Congress.
So, to prevent the spread of Bigot's Disease in "We" the People public spaces, I suggest this:
Prophylactics should be put on before rhetorical ejaculations are made on religious liberty.
And, people of morals must protect our Country from anti-other people contagions.
While Bono and Bill Gates are busy trying to prevent AIDs in Africa (with help from our Churches). And US Military is busy trying to prevent the spread of Muslim bigotry (with help from our Churches.)
We need good men (and women) to employ barrier methods that separate religion from government.
So non-Civil seeds are not spread via State pulpits.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini
http://dynamicshift.org
Today is no different. Baha'u'llah has come with a new message and a solution for all of today's problems. He appeared in 1844 and spent 40 years in prison, banishment and exile at the hands of Iranian and Turkish religious and government leaders.
No one is compelled to look into the teachings of the Baha'i Faith; all is voluntary. And the teachings state that they far surpass the combined teachings of Moses, Jesus and Mohammad.
What harm could possible come from investigating this Truth?
the Baha'i faith have to do with contraception which is the subject of this Post?
Life in this world depends on procreation of the human society. However, contraception is one factor, combined with the whole sexual revolution / free sex attitude (promiscuous, non-monogamous, premarital), that corrupts social morals and distracts people from their true purpose in life.
RSS feed for comments to this post.