Skip to comments.A Jealous God: How Far the New Liberal Orthodoxy Will Go
Posted on 03/11/2004 6:54:46 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
On March 1, the California Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities must include contraceptives in its prescription drug coverage despite clear Catholic teaching to the contrary.
Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, called the decision "a sign of the times," but that's not the half of it.
California law says that if employers offer prescription drug coverage, they must include contraceptives. The law, however, like similar laws, exempts "religious employers" like churches.
Catholic Charities argued that, as an "arm" of the Catholic church, it was exempt from offering the contraceptives. It pointed out that each chapter is "answerable to the local bishop."
But a 6-to-1 majority rejected Catholic Charities's arguments, saying that the law "does not affect internal church governance." Instead, Justice Werdegar wrote, it affects "a nonprofit public benefit corporation and its employees, many of whom do not belong to the Catholic church."
Justice Janice Brown, the sole dissenter, replied that the ruling defined "religious employers" too narrowly. As she put it, "[the ruling reflects] such a crabbed and restrictive view of religion that it would define the ministry of Jesus Christ as a secular activity." She described the law as "an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission . . . "
Exactly. As Professor Robert George of Princeton says, this ruling should be seen as part of a larger attack on the Catholic church for "its resistance to the new liberal orthodoxy." If the church can be forced to pay for contraceptives, then there's no reason why it can't be forced to pay for abortions and provide "spousal" benefits to same-sex partners. And, Dr. George reminds us, "What applies to the Catholic church will also apply to evangelical Protestant churches" as well.
And the ruling does more than provide a glimpse into a possible future where religious liberty has been effectively eradicated. It also provides us with an insight into the nature and priorities of the "new liberal orthodoxy."
Catholic Charities was subject to the law only because it provided its employees with prescription drug coverage -- something many employers don't do. Now Catholic Charities has two choices: Violate church teaching, or drop prescription drug coverage.
You would think that, in a culture where the cost of prescription drugs is a major political issue, an employer that provides such coverage would be applauded, not harassed. But you would think that only because you don't understand the "new liberal orthodoxy."
To put it in biblical terms, it's a jealous god (small g). It will countenance no rival truth claims. And so given a choice between imposing its views on religious organizations or helping working people afford prescription drugs, it chooses ideology over people. In fact, to employ another biblical term, it can be compared to Moloch, the Canaanite god who demanded the sacrifice of innocents.
This is strong language, but these are the times we live in. Protecting the freedom to worship our God begins with understanding how far our opponents will go in service to theirs.
Bowing to the State shouldn't be one of the choices. At this point, their only legitimate choices are to drop the drug coverage, or just defy the State and say, "come get me." Hopefully the SCOTUS will land on California like a ton of bricks over this, but who knows with them?
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
No, the choices are not limited to these 2. They can tell the court to go f themselves. Which is what they should do in addition to firing the bozo employee(s) that filed the suit in the first place.
Actually, only one of your proposed choices is legitimate (dropping drug coverage). There IS a real second legitimate choice---get the legislature to pass a law overruling the court. Chance of that happening = snowball in hell.
I with no legal schooling would read this as the state establishing its view of religion, a direct violation of the first amendment. The court acting on behalf of the state is taking a side on a social political issue and forcing its view upon the people.
The courts are out of control and they are pushing the moment closer in which warlords will seize the opportunity with a mandate from a broad base of the people who will react against meddling leftists. Warlords will wipe out the scourge of leftists -- lawyers, sociologists, psychologists, peace priests, union teachers -- who have crept into key positions of governmental power. Watch for a last minute gun grab by the statists as that moment comes closer.
In the last election, one half of eligible voters did not vote. Do these idiots realize what they are about to lose? They want to be left alone yet they won't vote against meddlers who want to control them. The
Exactly. As Rush says, capitalism is th unequal distribution of wealth. Liberalism is the equal distribution of misery.
By your definition Rosa Parks wasn't performing a legitimate act.
There IS a real second legitimate choice---get the legislature to pass a law overruling the court.
The law that the Catholic Charities is supposedly violating was very clear in its exemptions--and the court simply redefined what a religious organization is so they could save some woman from the horrific slavery of paying for her own birth control pills. If they pass another law, what should it say, "We hereby declare that religious organizations don't have to provide birth control, and we really, really mean it this time"?
When a bunch of black-robed idiots tell us that free exercise means the government tells you how you will serve your God, civil disobedience is more than justified. Don't get me wrong, they should let the appeals play out, but if the SCOTUS comes down with a ruling supporting the State's double violation of the 1st Amendment, the Catholic Charities should say, "Go ahead, make me."
Got it in one!
Nothing wrong with "civil disobedience" as long as one is will to PAY THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES, until the law is changed.
Oh, so the following words don't hold weight in California?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The Church (and I say this as a Catholic) bought this trouble for itself when it began acting like a secular business. There wouldn't be any demand for coverage for contraceptives (or for "domestic partner" benefits) if the employees of Catholic Charities were believing Catholics.
Yes, and her skirt was short, and she was in a bad part of town unescorted...oh wait, different subject. From the article:
Justice Janice Brown, the sole dissenter, replied that the ruling defined "religious employers" too narrowly. As she put it, "[the ruling reflects] such a crabbed and restrictive view of religion that it would define the ministry of Jesus Christ as a secular activity."
The Court found that a group which...
...is an arm of the Catholic Church
...carrying out the mission of Christ
...and reporting to a Bishop while doing it
...was a secular organization. Would an all-Catholic employee roster have changed that? Not bloody likely. And if some "believing Catholic" worked there for a couple of years and then decided she didn't believe in the birth control ban anymore, wouldn't we still be at this same spot? I say yes, even if the case was a "discrimination in firing" case rather than the one we have here.
And since when does the government get to violate the Constitution when someone does something inadvisable? Since when does the employee roster of an organization determine whether a court gets to violate clear provisions of the law?
Well, duh! But you called it illegitimate. I would say there is nothing, nothing more legitimate for a Christian to do than to choose God over man, and there is nothing, nothing more legitimate for an American to do than to choose the Constitution over a bunch of black-robed nitwits.
I would say only poor legal schooling would convince one otherwise. This violates both establishment (A church is what we say it is) and free exercise (and we're going to tell Catholics to fund what they believe is evil). In addition, they have ignored the intent and language of the exemptions for religious organizations, and have violated California law as well as the Constitution.
All the way to hell!
The line for those choosing to enter into HELL will stretch further than the Milky way and back and then some.
Yep, and she had a short skirt on in a bad part of town...oh wait, different subject.
Last time I checked, liberal churches were still churches, and the Constituion still said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
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.