I'm just a big ol' secular lefty, so I guess it's natural that I'd disagree. And I do. I guess I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools), hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars — and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy. Contra Dionne, it's precisely religious pluralism that makes this impractical. There are simply too many religions with too many religious beliefs to make this a reasonable approach. If we'd been talking about, say, an Islamic hospital insisting that its employees bind themselves to sharia law, I imagine the "religious community" in the United States would be a wee bit more understanding if the Obama administration refused to condone the practice.
That pretty much sums it up for me. If you want an exemption based on religious grounds for a policy that every secular institution must follow, then that's fine. Just becaome a fully religious instution. Stop accepting government money. Stop hiring those of other faiths. Stop opening your doors to the general public. Focus on being 100% religious and then you can have your exemption. But you can't have it both ways.
And for those trying to make a moralistic argument please stop. Providing contraceptive coverage on an insurance policy doesn't mean people have to use it. If you're hiring good moral Catholics then they should be against using contraceptives anyway since that's a teaching of the Church. It's a benefit that will never get used. That is if you assume that the Easter and Christmas bunch are actually following doctrine.

0 comments:
Post a Comment