Protecting Our

‘First Freedom’

To the Editor:

Mr Rabinowitz is right that we do not need the kind of language he cites, nor the specific attack on members of one party regarding the contraception/sterilization/abortifacient mandate [Letter Hive, “Facts Or Propaganda?” 2/10/12].

But I must disagree otherwise. He says these facts are relevant:  A) no one is forcing any individual to utilize contraception, sterilization or abortifacients;  B) under a new “compromise” religious employers do not have to offer plans with the coverage; and C) in his view, these services are very good things: anyone who disagrees that they should be offered, completely “free” (that is: paid for by all subscribers), without co-pays, deductibles, etc (unlike, say, if your child has cancer!) is part of the “dark ages.”

Bishop William Lori’s recent analogy from his testimony in Washington is insightful: say the government were to mandate that every privately owned kosher deli serve pork.  For “B,” the actual “compromise” offered is that the deli itself doesn’t have to offer pork, but kiosks must be set up on the deli’s property that do, “free” to every customer, and the deli will be required to pay their own meat supplier for that “free” pork!  Anyone who thinks you can make this kind of disingenuous end-run around the deepest moral beliefs doesn’t understand what morality or conscience are. It’s a casuistic, deceitful, letter-of-the-law “reasoning” that fools no one.

For “C,” one’s personal opinions about other people’s beliefs are also irrelevant.  I personally believe a lot of things would be good for people, but I am not at liberty to impose them on others. It is amusing that people always say religious people are “imposing” their views, when the truth is, they can only argue, try to persuade, propose, and suggest: only the government has the power to impose their favored set of moral beliefs (and make the rest of us pay).

That brings us to the most important point, “A” above. The fact that no individual person has to buy or eat pork (or use contraception) is completely irrelevant to the argument (and as an aside — though also irrelevant! — we are all free to turn down jobs at places that do not off the benefits we would like). The case is a formal case about a First Amendment right against government imposition, not a material case about a specific like contraception, pork, or anything else.  This is why it is irrelevant if the majority of Catholic individuals personally agree with the mandate. The question is about whether a religious institution, in violation of the First Amendment right to religious liberty, can be coerced by the government not only to  give up its most cherished beliefs, but to actively promote and be complicit in their opposite.

This is breathtaking, unheard of, and unconstitutional. The country’s First Freedom — freedom of religion from government control, and the freedom of all people of conscience as well —is at the root of the country’s founding. If you don’t care about this case, imagine a case involving other First Amendment freedoms important to you.

Mary Taylor

31 Jeremiah Road, Sandy Hook                             February 16, 2012