The founders of our country tried to
build a roadblock to such attempts in the First Amendment to the Constitution: Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
That seems pretty clear to those of us who want
religion kept as far away from the minds and wallets of citizens, it’s
apparently not obvious enough to the determined religious fringe. As has been noted in many contexts, people who
develop fool-proof plans often fail to recognize the ingenuity of fools.
Take the
Religious Freedom Act, Amendment 8 on Florida’s November ballot. Supposedly, it will “protect social services
offered by faith-based groups.” Not, not
really. What it will do is eliminate a
long-standing rule prohibiting the state from using tax dollars to support
faith-based organizations.
What’s wrong with that? After all, many faith-based groups started
hospitals and do excellent charity work – The Salvation Army and Habitat for
Humanity come to mind.
 |
| Blaine |
However, there’s a reason some 30
states have had that rule in their constitutions for more than 100 years. The brouhaha started in the 1870s, when
President Ulysses S. Grant called for a constitutional amendment to be sure public
money was not diverted to private Catholic schools. While the amendment failed, a proposal by
James G. Blaine, a Maine senator and failed presidential candidate, did get accepted
by most of the states. It bans the use
of public funds to support “sectarian institutions.”
That prohibition has been used ever
since to be sure religion-based institutions don’t get their avaricious fingers on tax dollars.
Former President George W. Bush tried
to counter it by getting faith-based organizations funded in prisons. A few years ago, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush
tried an end run by pushing state-funded vouchers so anyone could afford to
attend religious schools. That
failed. The new proposal will pick up
the gauntlet.
Nothing in the proposed amendment
will prevent private schools from getting public funding, a reality that
rightly offends lots of people.
 |
| Rabbi Shapiro |
“No one should be forced to pay for
religious education that they don’t believe in,” explained Rabbi Merrill
Shapiro, a board of trustee member with the secular-rights group Americans
United. “Ultimately, Muslims will be paying for Catholic education. Catholics
will be paying for Hindu education. Hindus will be paying to educate Buddhists.
Buddhists will be paying to educate Presbyterians. Presbyterians will be paying
to educate Jews.”
 |
| Sheedy |
Naturally, amendment backers
disagreed. Michael Sheedy, associate
director for health with the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, “This
is about more than vouchers. To say that this opens the doors to full-scale
vouchers is wrong.”
His logic is specious: “The
amendment doesn’t favor any religious group over another and doesn’t favor
religious groups over those that are secular.
What it does is remove required discrimination against an organization
simply because it’s religious.”
All that means is that Jews, Muslims
and other religions can apply for the same funding.
Wonderful. Let’s line them up, muzzles to the public trough,
and give all the religious groups their share.
That won’t happen, of course.
After all, who distributes the money?
Just the conservative Republicans, all Christian, who dominate the state
legislature.
The state is sure to plead poverty
when non-Christian groups apply.
Vouchers, however, aren’t even the biggest
concern. Not by a long shot. Instead, passage of the law will mean that
public money would go to organizations that already practice
discrimination. Some refuse to serve gay
people; others refuse to follow laws on abortions or other requirements that violate
their religious views.
As we all know, the list of
religious restrictions is really long.
It’s an issue now in front of the
Supreme Court, which just heard arguments “on whether business owners
can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama's
healthcare law that requires employers to provide health insurance that covers
birth control.”
Several
cases were combined for the Supreme Court hearing. According to published reports, one came from
an arts-and-crafts retailer Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Mardel, a chain of
Christian bookstores, both of which are owned and operated by a family of evangelical
Christians. The other case was brought by a Mennonite family that owns a Pennsylvania
company.
 |
| Verilli |
U.S.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who heads the team opposing the elimination
of the rules, is well aware of what a negative decision could mean. “A victory for the companies could lead to a
series of similar challenges to other federal requirements, potentially
including objections to minimum-wage laws, Social Security taxes and
anti-discrimination laws.” Verilli also wrote
that, for example, “a company could object to providing health coverage that
includes vaccinations.”
In
fact, such a ruling would open the door to every business finding a religious
objection to any form of benefits and to refuse service to a customer who might violate the supposed religious sensibilities of the owners.
Where
have we seen that kind of discrimination before? Under slavery, an institution backed by the
religious conservatives in this country.
If
these attempts fail, there will be others. Religious factions are determined to impose
their will on the rest of us, relying on of devilish deceit nicely disguised by
the patina of faith.
Long-time
religious historian Bill Lazarus regularly writes about religion and religious
history. He also speaks at various
religious organizations throughout Florida.
You can reach him at www.williamplazarus.net. He is the author of the famed Unauthorized
Biography of Nostradamus; The Last Testament of Simon Peter; The Gospel Truth: Where Did the Gospel
Writers Get Their Information; Noel:
The Lore and Tradition of Christmas Carols; and Dummies Guide to Comparative
Religion. His books are available on Amazon.com,
Kindle, bookstores and via various publishers.
He can also be followed on Twitter.
You
can enroll in his on-line class, Comparative Religion for Dummies, at
http://www.udemy.com/comparative-religion-for-dummies/?promote=1
That
apparently was not clear enough in either Florida
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida voters will be asked this
November to consider a religious-freedom amendment that seeks to protect
faith-based social services while also tackling anti-religious bias. Launched
on April 4, the Amendment 8 is one of two ballot initiatives being actively
supported by the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Amendment 8 is intended to do three things: It would
preserve partnerships between government and social-service organizations; it
would ensure continued delivery of social services by faith-based
organizations; and it would eliminate discrimination against churches and
religious institutions that provide social services.
“The citizens of Florida have an opportunity to correct an
historic injustice,” said Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami, president of the
Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops. “If voters approve the Religious
Freedom Act, our Florida Constitution will be more aligned with the U.S.
Constitution and, at the same time, will allow religious entities to continue
to participate in public programs.”
What the amendment essentially seeks to do is replace and
repeal the anti-religious Blaine Amendment language currently in the Florida
Constitution. Approximately 30 states currently have Blaine Amendment language
in their constitutions.
In 1875, Rep. James Blaine, influenced by the
anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic “Know Nothing” movement, sought to amend the U.S.
Constitution to effectively shut down Catholic schools, which were being built
in great numbers as an alternative to “Protestant” public schools. While Blaine
failed, he did succeed in having approximately 30 states incorporate his
language into their state constitutions. The result: banning the use of public
funds to support “sectarian institutions.”
That language states that “no revenue of the state… shall be
taken directly or indirectly in aid of any … sectarian institution.”
“Interpreted literally, this no-aid clause shuts out any of
a long list of potential partnerships between Florida government and
faith-based providers,” said Juan Zapata, former state representative and one
of the amendment’s original authors. “The list is long and diverse: food
pantries for low-income families; housing assistance programs; foster-care
agencies; substance-abuse treatment and recovery programs; prenatal and
pregnancy-care centers; prison ministries, as well as religiously affiliated
universities and hospitals. You might know them by names like … The Salvation
Army, Habitat for Humanity, Metropolitan Ministries, Abe Brown Ministries, to
name just a few.”
“Religious institutions have a long history of participation
in state programs that serve the public,” wrote Archbishop Wenski in a Sun-Sentinel
editorial. “That participation is in jeopardy, as appellate courts have cited
Article 1, Section 3 in recent decisions.”
Michael Sheedy, associate director for health with the
Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that faith-based food banks,
homeless shelters, halfway houses, Catholic hospitals and The Salvation Army
could be at risk.
“Secular humanists could challenge any kind of faith-based
organization,” said Sheedy.
Broader Than
Vouchers
Opponents of the measure and several news outlets have
described the amendment as a battle over school vouchers.
“No one should be forced to pay for religious
education that they don’t believe in,” Rabbi Merrill Shapiro, a board of
trustee member with the secular-rights group Americans United, told Fox News.
“Ultimately, Muslims will be paying for Catholic education. Catholics will be
paying for Hindu education. Hindus will be paying to educate Buddhists.
Buddhists will be paying to educate Presbyterians. Presbyterians will be paying
to educate Jews.”
Supporters, however, disagree.
“This is about more than vouchers,” said Sheedy. “To say
that this opens the doors to full-scale vouchers is wrong.”
“The amendment doesn’t favor any religious group over
another and doesn’t favor religious groups over those that are secular,” added
Sheedy. “What it does is remove required discrimination against an organization
simply because it’s religious.”
“The Florida Supreme Court did not use the Blaine Amendment
to strike down vouchers,” explained Sheedy. “It relied on Article IX, Section
1, the Florida Constitution’s ‘Uniformity Clause,’ which requires the state to
provide a ‘uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high-quality system of free
public schools.’ This would not be changed in any way by Amendment 8.”
“It is ironic to note that it was religious communities and
churches that were responsible for the creation of hospitals … and for much of
the development of the health-care system in this country,” said Zapata. “Yet,
today, the Florida Constitution would tell them it doesn’t want their help
because people of faith would deliver it.”
Amendment 8 is one of two ballot initiatives the Florida
Conference of Catholic Bishops is supporting. The other, Amendment 6,
strengthens parental rights by allowing future legislation to require parental
consent for children seeking an abortion, prohibits the use of public funds for
abortions or health-care coverage that would include abortion, and aligns
Florida’s state law with existing federal law regarding limits on the use of
public funding for abortions or health-care coverage that would include
abortions.
“At the core of Amendment 8 are the basic building blocks of
our society: liberty and fairness. Florida law currently excludes religious
organizations from receiving state funds, even when those funds are used for
the benefit of all people,” said Bishop Frank Dewane of the Diocese of Venice.
“To deny state funds to an organization specifically because of its religious
affiliation ignores the tremendous good faith-based organizations do, and it
violates religious freedom. The passage of Amendment 8 would help religious
institutions like the Catholic Church continue to do what they do very well,
which is to serve the community and improve the common good.”
WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) -
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday considers whether business owners can object
on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama's healthcare law
that requires employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.
In one of the biggest cases of the year, the nine justices will hear an extended 90-minute oral argument, with the extra 30 minutes the court added to the usual hour-long session hinting at the complexity of the legal issues involved.
The case pits religious rights against reproductive rights, with a heavy dose of politics added to the mix. A capacity crowd will fill the marble courtroom, with many demonstrators expected outside.
Even the main lawyers in the case, for the Obama administration and Paul Clement for the religious employers, are familiar names. They argued against each other the last time the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, was before the justices in 2012.
In that case, the justices upheld by a 5-4 vote the constitutionality of Obamacare's core feature that requires people to get health insurance.
The dozens of companies involved in the litigation do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.
The case also touches on questions of corporate rights four years after the court, in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, endorsed broad free-speech rights for companies in the campaign finance context.
A ruling is expected by the end of June.
The so-called "contraception mandate" of the healthcare law requires employers to provide in their health insurance policies preventive services for women that include access to contraception and sterilization.
The court will hear two consolidated challenges brought by closely held companies and their owners.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
The justices will weigh whether the challengers have a claim under a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which ensures the free exercise of religion.
The case, which has no bearing on the broader fate of the healthcare law, will determine whether some companies will be exempted from the contraception coverage requirement. Religious institutions already are exempted from the regulation.
In court papers, some Republican members of Congress have supported the companies, while Democrats have backed the Obama administration.
The administration's lawyer, Verrilli, said in court papers that a victory for the companies could lead to a series of similar challenges to other federal requirements, potentially including objections to minimum-wage laws, Social Security taxes and anti-discrimination laws. He noted, for example, that a company could object to providing health coverage that includes vaccinations.
"A reading of RFRA that would produce this regime of virtually automatic exemptions from critical employee-protection legislation cannot be correct," Verrilli wrote.
The government is backed by women's rights groups, who say contraceptives should be made as widely available as possible for public health reasons. [ID: nL2N0M724C]
The challengers and their supporters, including a wide-range of religious groups, counter that the case is really about whether the government can trample on fervently held religious beliefs.
"No one should be forced to give up their constitutionally protected civil rights just to go into business," said Kyle Duncan, a lawyer for Hobby Lobby.
The cases are Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-354, 13-356. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Grant McCool)
In one of the biggest cases of the year, the nine justices will hear an extended 90-minute oral argument, with the extra 30 minutes the court added to the usual hour-long session hinting at the complexity of the legal issues involved.
The case pits religious rights against reproductive rights, with a heavy dose of politics added to the mix. A capacity crowd will fill the marble courtroom, with many demonstrators expected outside.
Even the main lawyers in the case, for the Obama administration and Paul Clement for the religious employers, are familiar names. They argued against each other the last time the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, was before the justices in 2012.
In that case, the justices upheld by a 5-4 vote the constitutionality of Obamacare's core feature that requires people to get health insurance.
The dozens of companies involved in the litigation do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.
The case also touches on questions of corporate rights four years after the court, in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, endorsed broad free-speech rights for companies in the campaign finance context.
A ruling is expected by the end of June.
The so-called "contraception mandate" of the healthcare law requires employers to provide in their health insurance policies preventive services for women that include access to contraception and sterilization.
The court will hear two consolidated challenges brought by closely held companies and their owners.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
The justices will weigh whether the challengers have a claim under a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which ensures the free exercise of religion.
The case, which has no bearing on the broader fate of the healthcare law, will determine whether some companies will be exempted from the contraception coverage requirement. Religious institutions already are exempted from the regulation.
In court papers, some Republican members of Congress have supported the companies, while Democrats have backed the Obama administration.
The administration's lawyer, Verrilli, said in court papers that a victory for the companies could lead to a series of similar challenges to other federal requirements, potentially including objections to minimum-wage laws, Social Security taxes and anti-discrimination laws. He noted, for example, that a company could object to providing health coverage that includes vaccinations.
"A reading of RFRA that would produce this regime of virtually automatic exemptions from critical employee-protection legislation cannot be correct," Verrilli wrote.
The government is backed by women's rights groups, who say contraceptives should be made as widely available as possible for public health reasons. [ID: nL2N0M724C]
The challengers and their supporters, including a wide-range of religious groups, counter that the case is really about whether the government can trample on fervently held religious beliefs.
"No one should be forced to give up their constitutionally protected civil rights just to go into business," said Kyle Duncan, a lawyer for Hobby Lobby.
The cases are Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-354, 13-356. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Grant McCool)
No comments:
Post a Comment