Posted on 04/15/2015 7:13:57 AM PDT by Kaslin
Religious oppression was one reason many of our ancestors came to America. They wanted to escape rulers who demanded that everyone worship their way. In Ireland, Catholics couldn't vote or own a gun.
I assumed that because many of America's founders came here to escape such repression, they were eager to allow religious freedom in America. After all, the very First Amendment in the Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
But I was wrong. On my TV show this week, Chapman University economist Larry Iannaccone explains that many American settlers were just as tyrannical about insisting that everyone follow their religion: "In the Northeast, it was Puritanism or Calvinism. In New York and Virginia, Anglicanism, the Church of England. Elsewhere, it was Catholicism."
Only when colonists tried to form a nation, and met with others who practiced different religions (or none, like Thomas Jefferson), did they put freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights.
So what does that mean today? President Obama tells religious people that he supports "the right to practice our faith how we choose."
But Obamacare functionaries ordered Christian groups to fund employees' purchase of birth control and the morning-after abortion pill. Some religious people believe both pills are a form of murder. Would their president force them to pay for what they consider murder? You betcha.
The Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, sued, and the Supremes ruled that some faith-based corporations can get an exemption from Obamacare. But it was a pathetically narrow victory, applying only to small, privately-held companies, and they still must hire lawyers to beg for an exemption. Non-profits and bigger groups such as Notre Dame still must fund what they consider to be murder.
Leftists still assailed the court for granting even this tiny exemption. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she "can't believe we live in a world where we'd even consider letting big corps deny women access to basic care."
Harry Reid said, "If the Supreme Court will not protect women's access to health care, then Democrats will."
What utter nonsense! No one was "denied access" to anything. Anyone with a prescription can buy birth control pills at Wal-Mart for $9. Are leftists so in love with big government that they think government not funding something is akin to banning it? Apparently they do.
Hobby Lobby's owners were represented in court by a group called the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Becket's director, Kristina Arriaga, says Hobby Lobby isn't stingy or cruel: "The Green family pays twice the minimum wage, closes on Sundays, gives very generous benefits to their employees, and they did not object to 16 out of the 20 drugs (for which coverage was mandated)."
I say it shouldn't matter whether the Green family is good to its employees. No one is forced to work for them or any company. If business owners don't want to fund birth control, alcohol rehab, haircuts or anything, that should be their right.
They created the company (or paid to buy it), and as long as they don't collude with competitors, they should be allowed to impose whatever rules they want. Employees aren't trapped. Anyone can quit. Companies that give more generous benefits will attract better employees. That competition protects workers better than government mandates ever will.
Letting government make so many one-size-fits-all decisions creates new problems. Iannaccone argues that religion is more vibrant in the U.S. because the American government has mostly left religion alone. In Europe, governments subsidized religion or set the rules. The state promised protection for all but ended up becoming an enforcer of orthodoxy. That made religion more homogeneous and less appealing. Forty percent of Americans say they go to church every week. In England and France, only 10 percent do. In Denmark, only 3 percent attend.
"Religion is a market phenomenon like other ones," Iannaccone says, "and when you make the government the arbiter, the funder, (religion) operates like a typical lazy monopoly. Incentives are lost. The clergy get focused on pleasing politicians rather than the people."
Government ought to leave us alone so we can do as we please, in collaboration with whatever God we believe in.
“Are leftists so in love with big government that they think government not funding something is akin to banning it?”
YES! That’s what makes them leftists. That’s the whole game.
Only when colonists tried to form a nation, and met with others who practiced different religions (or none, like Thomas Jefferson), did they put freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Stossell has made an error and/or a lie of omission in his commentary. The first paragraph above is precisely the reason that the First Amendment uses the wording "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting establishment..." - the power to establish (or not) a state-sponsored religion (within the borders of an individual state) was left to the individual states.
ping
PS - Expansion of the scope of the 14th Amendment has made the 1st amendment issue of individual states establishing a state religion a moot point.
Birth control not your bosses business? Then don’t ask him to fund it
There is no Freedom of Religion in America since they banned Jesus from the public schools and public square. There is no ability to transmit our culture and Traditions to the majority of children since the suppression and demeaning and demonizing of our heritage and beliefs and culture.
They (government) demean and denigrate the Christian Faith and Traditions for the majority of the day, for the majority of students (on purpose), while Satanism and Atheism and paganism is promoted and endorsed by the State 24/7.
Everyone has a Faith.....everyone has an ideology—every curricula promotes a “belief” system-—and the only religions which are allowed in the public square and to be promoted 24/7 is that of Atheists, cults, Satanists (sodomites) and Mother Earth worship.
3000 years of Ethics are being flipped-—that ideology based on Natural Law like our Constitution (which is in line with Judeo-Christian beliefs only). All other “faiths” are irrational to the extreme and discard science and Reason and Rule of Law (Higher Law based on Justice/God’s Laws, the Queen of Virtue). Laws that promote Vice (theft/welfare/etc.) are Stalin’s ethics and are unconstitutional always..
Freedom of religion means freedom from Islam.
Can I say “amen” to that?
If memory serves, Stossel is a bit anti-Christian on some issues, but he appears true to his libertarian ideals. Even if he disagrees with what some of us believe, he still supports our right to believe and practice it. I can definitely live with that (as I support his right to not believe in Jesus should he desire that).
why would he use an example that had nothing to do with our founding?
Catholics barely existed in America at it's founding, less than one half, of one percent, and they didn't start arriving until generations after the founding, so this leaves a false impression.
Good for John Stossel, who is Jewish, yet objectively understands the value of religion for the society as a whole that is majority Christian..
Dylan: Gotta Serve Somebody
less than one half, of one percent
1.2% at the time of the Revolution, sorry. And the colony of Maryland was originally founded by and for Catholics seeking to escape the persecution under the English Penal Laws.
You are correct that the First Amendment refers to Congress, and not to the states. Until relatively recently, many state constitutions still reserved the right to establish a given church within their borders.
Maryland was a Catholic colony.
However, the founding governors of Maryland (1629) were Irish Catholics, and there was a large Catholic population in this key colony, which contained the huge bay port of Annapolis as its capital. Before the lines were drawn for the District of Columbia in 1780, Maryland was also the location of the Jesuit college (1789) that would become Georgetown University.
You say 1.4% and reputable estimates put it at .4%.
Thanks for the validation.
Yeah, being able to name some individuals really changes the facts of the numbers and percentages of a nation’s population.
Yeah, where do you think that most of those handful of Catholics lived?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.