While the HHS contraceptive mandate was front and center during the Democratic National convention, the focus of considerable media attention, the cause of a nationwide protest movement including The Fortnight for Freedom, and the subject of dozens of lawsuits filed by Catholic colleges and other institutions, the issue of religious liberty was essentially ignored during the first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney.
Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS, who did a good job in many ways, failed to ask a question about this important issue despite the focus of the debate being domestic issues. But more surprisingly, President Obama, who couldn't talk about anything else for the past few months, never spoke about the issue either. To be fair, he didn't have a lot of time between his uhm's and uh's.
Romney, however, did give what some might call a "shout-out" to the issue. In answering a question from Lehrer about the role of government, Romney pointed to the text of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that was used as a background behind the stage.
"The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents," he said. "First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people."
He added, "In that line that says we are endowed by our creator with our rights, I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose."
He did a few things with those few sentences. He reminded some that Obama tends to drop the "Creator" when quoting our country's founding documents. He slightly emphasized life. And he reminded us that religious freedom has certainly been imperiled during this past four years.
There is one more opportunity for this issue to be raised during a debate on Oct. 16 in a town hall-style debate in which foreign and domestic topics will be welcome. The final debate on Oct. 22, however, is slated to center exclusively on foreign affairs.
This would've been the first time the issue could've been debated in front of millions of people instead of demagogued. But maybe that's why it wasn't brought up.
This administration has not just attacked religious liberty, it's trampled on it. The Administration has issued a mandate that forces religious institutions to provide for abortifacients, they dropped their defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, and argued in court that the government could interfere in employment decisions of religious organizations and churches.
Oh and please don't believe anyone that tells you that same sex "marriage" won't affect religious institutions. If the Administration considers the right to contraceptives important enough to run roughshod over religious liberty, why would they do less for "marriage?"
But think about it. Dozens of institutions have sued the Obama administration over the HHS mandate. Notre Dame is among them. Notre Dame! And we still can't get a sniff? The bishops haven't exactly been shy about this issue, have they? The Democrat National convention was essentially an infomercial for the contraceptive mandate. Sandra Fluke spoke in prime time. So why the silence now? Did the "war on women" meme not pay the dividends they were hoping for?
We'll see what happens during the next debate.
Comments
Post a Comment
Looking at the Hobby Lobby case, talking about “religious liberty” uses one word too many. What is at stake is the freedom for ANY business owners to run their business in a way that is consistent with their values.
I think the Bishops have hurt themselves by thinking too small across the board. Not only are the Administration’s attacks are far broader than just religion, the Catholic Church has a radically different, positive view for women’s health, which hasn’t become part of the conversation.
Still, I am not optimistic. Judging by my facebook thread, the “War on Women” was completely effective. I’ve already seen someone thank Obama for the free birth control. (She got angry when I told her that the money would just come out of her paycheck in the form of higher insurance premiums and that she should thank herself instead.)
Obama gained votes by attacking the Catholic Church and angered people who weren’t going to vote for him anyway. It was a brilliant and cynical Democratic answer to the gun issue.
And he’s buying votes. The “War on Women” is merely a new twist on the old saying: “He who robs Peter to pay Paula can always count on the support of Paula.”
Waywardson: It is the duty of the citizen to keep his mouth open. Religious Liberty includes all liberty. If the Person of God is denied citizenship, and God is a citizen of the world being denied citizenship in the United States, if the Son of Man is denied liberty and citizenship, then who can be free? If God is denied liberty, what creature can be free? Who among us can be free when the endower and creator of freedom is denied? The free will, the conscience is part of the human soul. The human soul is denied by atheism.
“that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.” (emphasis added)
This was Jefferson recognizing that not all humans worship the same god. It was a recognition that the Catholics have different beliefs than Presbyterians or Lutherans. That Muslims have different beliefs than Jews. That Native Americans have different beliefs than the White settlers etc. It is a recognition that a person has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness no matter in which Creator one believes. Further, it is a re-inforcement that religious freedom is a two way street: the religious, true believers cannot enforce their belief system on those who don’t believe the way they do, and the non-believers cannot prevent the true believers from worshipping in the manner of their choosing.
To this end, there are those who do not subscribe the view that life begins at conception, that a fetus is not a person until it is birthed breathing and eating on its own. Life beginning at conception is a religous belief and therefore should not be imposed on those who are non-believers. Yet this is precisely what the Anti-Abortionist seek to do. Blinded by their religious convictions, they seek to attack those who do not subscribe to their point of view. Is it possible, Anti-abortionists, that their Creator does not look at life the same way?
Certainly, there will be those Anti-Abortionists who will immediately call those who seek or perform abortions as Godless, horrible people wanting to jail them and deny them life liberty and the pursuit of happiness all under the pretense that their belief is superior. The slaughter of Native Americans, the Holocaust, the enslavement of millions is based on the concept that some are subhuman Godless creatures that deserve to be enslaved or destroyed. This is precisely what Jefferson sought to prevent with those words.
Starzec. If the newly begotten child was not alive and growing there would be no abortion. Precisly, the HHS mandate was added after Congress passed Obamacare. Congress never would have passed Obamacare had they known it would interfer with the practice of freedom of religion and speech in demanding that churches counsel abortion Monday through Saturday but not on Sunday. I kid you not. How is that freedom? But the real issue is the government intrusion on the conscience rights of sovereign persons who constitute the government. Taxation without representation. If the government goes against its constituents, the citizens are not being represented. Disenfranchising every person exercising his freedom of religion is not democracy. It is tyrannical and a sin.
starzec: Thomas Jefferson said this too: “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.——Thomas Jefferson” A person who disavows our founding principles disavows his citizenship in America. Taxation without representation imposes just such tyranny.
Starzec,
“The slaughter of Native Americans, the Holocaust, the enslavement of millions is based on the concept that some are subhuman Godless creatures that deserve to be enslaved or destroyed.”
So, ah, fetuses, perhaps? They’ve this great quality about them that they’re hidden away, so no one has to feel bad or messy about them, y’know…being destroyed.
“To this end, there are those who do not subscribe the view that life begins at conception, that a fetus is not a person until it is birthed breathing and eating on its own. Life beginning at conception is a religous belief and therefore should not be imposed on those who are non-believers.”
—
Life beginning at conception is a scientific reality, not a religious belief. What exactly is your criteria for life? Breathing independently? Then everyone who has ever been on a ventilator has been dead. Heart beating? Same goes for those on a heart-lung machine. (Incidentallly, a new human life has his or her heart beating independently 18 days after conception.) Is it based on brain development? Then all of a sudden, you must include a large number of people with brain damage or some other form of brain impairment (whether congenital or acquired). How about genetics? This necessarily points one back to the moment of conception, at which point a new, unique being with its own complete set of DNA is formed. Does dependency matter? If so, than you must accept infanticide right along with abortion (and some do, sadly). No, the science backs up that an embryo is the same person as the fetus and the baby, just at different developmental stages.
—
The sad truth is that for many pro-aborts, the only criteria that is needed to determine the value of a human life is whether or not it is “wanted” or not “inconvenient.” Even more sadly is that many women do not want to pursue abortion but are pressured and coerced by those who should be supporting them.
—
The questions you must ask are: 1. Is it human? and 2. Can I kill it?
Starzec,
So are you saying that there are “many” creators? Because he didn’t say “endowed by whom they PERCEIVE as their creator”...he said endowed by THEIR creator, which would imply, if read as you claim, that Thomas Jefferson was acknowledging a multitude of creators. Doesn’t seem plausible. Wouldn’t the correct grammatical phrase have been “enowed by their creators”?
Who is your creator? If you don’t believe in one, then are you excluded from the statement? Who is the creator of those unborn children?
My point is that either T.J. was saying that there is ONE creator, and he uses the word their to mean “the one who created everyone” or he believes there are an infinite amount of creators. What is clear, is that he believes we WERE created. And whether or not there is one creator, or many, EVERY LIFE is protected by the CREATOR(s) given right. Not the human given right, but the creator(s) given right. What the creator(s) give, man cannot take away.
Life begins at fertilization. That’s simply a fact. And that Right to Life, as you can see, is protected…unalienably. It’s human. It’s alive. It’s human life. Period.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.