You are here:   Counterpoints > Obama v Madison

In Memorial and Remonstrance, James Madison anticipated America's First Amendment protections for religious liberty by proclaiming an "unalienable right" publicly to worship God in freedom — without government meddling. "Religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence."

In a religiously diverse society, Madison's principle created a compact for civic peace.

President Obama's healthcare plan, by radically redefining one's duties to Big Government, threatens to send the compact into the shredder. The administration insists that Catholic and other religious institutions must fund a full range of birth-control services in the health insurance plans they offer their employees — regardless of whether they consider such services morally objectionable.

The ruling has unleashed a hailstorm of criticism — enough to force Team Obama to announce an "accommodation" that would shift the emphasis to insurance companies. Many see this as an accounting gimmick, however, because Catholic organisations would still be forced to subsidise drugs and procedures that violate Church teaching, including sterilisation, contraception, and drugs that induce abortion. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has denounced the law as a violation of religious freedom, and pledges to oppose it. 

For now, at least, the legislation exempts churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship on the basis of religious conscience. But the burden will fall upon all religiously-affiliated organisations: colleges, universities, hospitals, clinics, charities and other faith-based groups. Failure to comply will result in fines of $2,000 per employee.

The administration insists that most Catholics use birth control and that no one is forced to buy contraception under the law. The argument misses the point entirely: the First Amendment, as interpreted by numerous Supreme Court rulings, places a severe burden on government before it may limit religious freedom. With birth control and abortion so widely available, what rationale — other than a demand for ideological purity — justifies state discrimination against religious by-affiliated organisations?

View Full Article
March 8th, 2012
3:03 AM
Section 2000e-1 "Does not apply to employees of religious entities." (get all the facts)

March 6th, 2012
8:03 AM
Have you heard of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Religious organisations with more than fifteen employees have been required to cover contraception since 2000. The new legislation will require no co-pay and will apply to employers even if they have fewer than fifteen employees. To all intents and purposes nothing has changed.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.