tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1538477881080991285.post5390555913674279243..comments2024-03-29T10:46:06.361-04:00Comments on City Father: The Issue for Religious InstitutionsCity Fatherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17769559147659492086noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1538477881080991285.post-32641742165684516502012-06-25T09:41:58.708-04:002012-06-25T09:41:58.708-04:00Thank you for such a thoughtful piece on this impo...Thank you for such a thoughtful piece on this important issue. I agree with you that the Church's academic, health, and social service institutions/organizations have played a vital role in society and human history, especially with regards to the moral and values-based elements that are so intrinsic to their existence. <br /><br />On the current issue regarding the Church's religious freedom concerns, there appears to be a distinction between the cases that you cite from the past and the current situation, which is absent from your article. You wrote:<br /><br />"Americans are accustomed to accommodating particular religious groups’ objections to being compelled to engage in certain activities that are contrary to their religious beliefs – Quakers not wanting to be drafted serve in the military, Jehovah’s Witnesses not wanting to have to salute the flag, Amish not wanting to be forced to attend High School, Orthodox Jews not wanting to be required to accept Saturday employment, etc." <br /><br />In the case of the Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish, and Orthodox Jews, you are talking about individuals and their conscientious objection to a particular situation. What makes the current situation involving the leadership of the Catholic Church different, is that in essence an employer is making a decision for its members and, therefore, ignoring the relevance of an individual's conscience. In short, the employer is saying "I don't agree with that, so I don't want to pay for that for any of my employees." That's what the bishops are saying in plain language. What if religious employers asked for a waiver for vaccination coverage? Wouldn’t we view that as denying a health service that many of us view as necessary, while others perceive it as “wrong” in the eyes of God? We can quickly see how the bishops’ current efforts could lead to an uncontrollable slippery slope in the world of public policy.<br /><br />In each of the historical cases you presented, the individual was free to make a decision in line with his/her faith community or to make a decision contrary to such without financial hardship to the person. In the current situation, that is not the case. In the current case, the rights of the "corporation" are suppressing the rights of the "individual" in a way that would place financial hardship on the individual person if they required the care that the bishops are attempting to seek an exemption for. Further, this is a denial of a right that the Supreme Court has upheld as being constitutionally protected. Now although I may not agree with abortion, I do respect the legal institutions of our country as well as the important role that a well-formed conscience plays in making a decision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com