WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s designation of a national Religious Freedom Day is leading to calls for his administration to show greater respect for the conscience rights of Americans.
“If it is not to be an empty promise,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, “religious freedom must also include acting on one’s deepest religious beliefs when one is feeding the poor, caring for the sick, educating the young or running a business.”
Duncan welcomed the president’s proclamation but expressed regret over its failure to acknowledge the threats to religious freedom posed by the controversial contraception mandate.
Customarily proclaimed and celebrated every year on Jan. 16, Religious Freedom Day marks the anniversary of the 1786 enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, penned by Thomas Jefferson.
In his official 2013 proclamation, Obama recognized “our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution.”
“Foremost among the rights Americans hold sacred is the freedom to worship as we choose,” the proclamation said. “Because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose.”
Recognizing the contributions of people of faith to the building of America, the president acknowledged that religious liberty is not merely an American principle enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but “a universal human right” that constitutes “an essential part of human dignity” and a necessary ingredient for lasting peace.
He called on Americans to use Jan. 16 to learn about religious liberty and how it can be protected for future generations.
Tim Schultz, state legislative policy director for the American Religious Freedom Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told Catholic News Agency that the annual proclamation indicates that Americans “overwhelmingly” support religious freedom. He noted that the Religious Freedom Day is proclaimed every year by presidents of either political party, showing that religious liberty is not a partisan concern, but a basic American principle.
Religion is “at the core” of people’s identity, Schultz explained, and Americans of all faiths and no faith at all recognize the importance of a robust freedom of religion. He called on the administration to ensure that its actions matched its language promoting freedom of religion for all Americans.
More Than ‘Worship’
Other religious-freedom advocates voiced concern over the Obama administration’s failure to support the free exercise of religion.
In a statement responding to the proclamation, Duncan criticized the president’s use of the phrase “freedom of worship.”
“Religious freedom certainly includes worship, but it extends beyond the four walls of a church,” he said, pointing to the contraception mandate, which requires employers to provide insurance coverage of contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can induce early abortions.
The Obama administration has denied an exemption to religious owners of for-profit companies, arguing that their exercise of religion does not extend to business decisions.
The mandate, Duncan warned, ignores the breadth of religious liberty “and is, therefore, out of step with our traditions and our laws, which promise religious freedom for all.”
Ashley McGuire, senior fellow for The Catholic Association, called the president’s proclamation “tremendously hypocritical.” She pointed to the more than 100 plaintiffs who have filed religious-freedom lawsuits over the contraception mandate.
“By replacing ‘freedom of religion’ with ‘freedom of worship’ yet again,” McGuire told CNA, “the president makes plain as day his effort to confine religion entirely to the private sphere. This is very bad for Americans of every religion.”


Comments
Post a Comment
I know everyone is hot and bothered about the contraception mandate, but what about the barrels of money our government puts to immoral uses in other contexts? Under the mantle of religous liberty, shouldn’t I be able to withhold the portion of my taxes that fund immoral military activities, like drone strikes? And how about how U.S. policy that props up U.S. farmers, making it impossible for Latin American farmers to make a living wage; is it OK for me to withhold the portion of my taxes that go to farm subsidies b/c I consider them immoral? And how about the money the federal and state government give to Catholic Charities? If I’m not a Christian, shouldn’t I be able to withhold the taxes that go to religious charities that offend my religious sensibilities?
Talk about saying one thing & doing another….
:(
Andy, there is a huge difference.
There is no separate mandate or tax for defense, or farm subsidies. The money comes from the general funds collected by the government. And in a general sense we give to Caesar what is Caeser’s by paying our taxes for all programs, and cannot separate the “good” from the “bad”.
The HHS mandate requires each to pay, not into a general fund where the money cannot be separated, but directly into funds for a specific purpose.
Contraception is simply the focal point. The broader issue is the definition a religious organization to qualify for a religious exemption.
There has been a lot of talk about accommodations and grace periods, but the religious exemption is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. It is so narrow that Christ would not qualify for the exemption simply because he served others
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.