So..Obama, health care and Catholics. Did he blow it?

[Ted King]

cbelt3 wrote:
haikuman.. no arguments that the Church does not have clean hands. I'm afraid that the history of any organized religion is quite bloody.

And yet... The real argument is not over history, or child abuse, but over the constitutionality of forcing a religious organization to fund medical supplies that it believes unethical, and medical procedures that it finds anathema at its very core.

If this can happen, where are the limits ?
Can we force Jews to not circumcise ?
Can we force Muslims to eat Pork ?
Can we force Vegans to eat Meat ?
Can we force PETA members to wear Fur ?

and so on...

A better way of putting that in this context is - can a kosher deli owner be forced to have pork on his menu?

But let's flip that around. If religious freedom means that religious institutions and all their affiliated activities cannot be constrained by the government, then - can a hospital run by a religious institution refuse to treat a gay person because doing so went against their religious belief? Or a black person?

If we treat religious freedom as an absolute principle, then the answer to those question would be, yes, they can refuse to treat people based only on the person's sexual orientation or race. I suppose some people will say that we should treat religious freedom as an absolute principle, but I don't think most people would agree and I certainly do not.

But I do agree that religious freedom is important even though I am an atheist. So, like with so many things, it's not a matter of absolute principles, but where to draw the line. Did the Obama administration draw the line where it imposes overly much on religious freedom. It is a tough call. When it comes to abortion, I can understand that requiring the paying for that is drawing the line too far, but with contraception I'm not so sure. The reality is that in practice the vast majority of people use contraception, and I think that practical reality goes a long way towards trumping religious freedom. Also, most people anymore are paying a significant part of their medical premiums along with the contribution from their employer which mitigates against this being wholly about the religious freedom of the employer.