The Catholic Church doesn’t own religious liberty

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/the-catholic-church-doesnt-own-religious-liberty/2012/06/22/gJQAH2KGvV_blog.html

Posted at 11:44 AM ET, 06/22/2012
The Catholic Church doesn’t own religious liberty
By Laura W. Murphy




Recently, anti-LGBT activist Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association boldly claimed on his radio show that “[w]e can’t have homosexuality and the First Amendment.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says pretty much the same thing about equal benefits for women when they rail against the Obama administration’s new rules requiring insurance plans to cover birth control. This type of argument is getting a lot of play lately, and it’s often accepted uncritically – despite the fact that it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment and its protections for religious liberty. Unfortunately, it’s a misunderstanding we’ve seen in past civil rights struggles – but fortunately, it’s also one that we’ve resoundingly rejected.

Drawing on this theme, the bishops this week kicked off their “Fortnight for Freedom.” It’s a much-hyped campaign that purports to champion religious freedom, but in actuality distorts it by promoting the use of religion as a license to discriminate. The bishops have made headlines lately for their vociferous opposition to contraception. They argue that because Catholic doctrine opposes birth control, no woman should be guaranteed coverage of it in her health plan. But their agenda goes much further than contraception.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who chairs the bishops’ conference, recently took the president to task for his support of marriage for same-sex couples, and the bishops have been forcefully advocating that Catholic agencies should be able to get government contracts while refusing to perform the required work. In other words, they believe that a Catholic charity that receives public funding to provide adoption licenses, for example, should be able to turn away otherwise qualified same-sex couples who want to provide loving homes to children in need. On all these fronts, the bishops claim that this is about religious liberty. Don’t be fooled. It’s about discrimination plain and simple. And it’s not the first time this has happened.

From the birth of the civil rights movement, some opponents of those rights argued that their religion required them to discriminate against others. Restaurants wanted out of laws requiring businesses that are open to the public to treat everyone equally regardless of race. They claimed that religion compelled them to segregate their establishments, and asserted that the First Amendment required the government to put civil rights laws aside.

more at link

[msongs]

1. the catholic church doesn't even HAVE religious liberty nt

[cbayer]

2. Not sure what you mean here.

[meow2u3]

3. Religious liberty does not apply to institutions

Not according to the 1st Amendment.

Religious liberty is an individual right and the institutional church is usurping and twisting the 1st Amendment to justify theocratic oppression. This fundamentalist bent is a direct result of the outsized influence of secretive big money coming from far-right, fascist, and even criminal organizations like Opus Dei, the Knights of Malta, Legion of Christ, and Communion and Liberation, to name a few.

[part man all 86]

4. i like the way you think

[meow2u3]

9. I AM Catholic, by the way

There's a biiiiig difference between the Catholic Church as established by Christ and the Catholic Church the way the hierarchy is running it now. I'll tell you, if Christ came down from heaven now, he would not be pleased in the least with the way the religious leaders have taken His word and teachings and twisted them to justify child sexual abuse, oppression of women, and the wholesale corruption going on in the highest offices of the church.

[daaron]

6. Ayup. Now if we can just get the SCROTUS to see that. nt

[skepticscott]

7. Where does the First Amendment

say anything about "institutions"? And where did you get the notion that First Amendment rights are solely individual rights? Does freedom of the press not apply to media organizations? Are organizations not guaranteed the right to petition government? Is the right of assembly not inherently a group right?

[meow2u3]

10. The short answer: nowhere

The longer answer: the First Amendment applies to institutions only in the distorted fantasies of abusive, overbearing authority.

[skepticscott]

11. You have no legal arguments of any kind

to back that up. You don't even have answers to the questions I posed. Just a preconceived notion about the way you THINK things ought to be that no reason or evidence can disabuse you of.

I know it won't penetrate for you, but anyone reading that IS capable of reasoned thought on the issue should consider why "abusive, overbearing authority" has always tried to suppress the exercise of freedom of the press by institutions like newspapers and TV stations. If such authority had its way, the First Amendment wouldn't apply to them.

[daaron]

12. I agree with both of you, for what it's worth, and here's why -->

Citizen's United hinged on whether or not money = speech, not whether corporation = person. meow... seems to be suggesting that SCROTUS' decision was crap - an opinion I hold as well.

OTOH, not all institutions are the same. There are many different organizational models. Corporations are not people, but for instance Unions operate democratically, and so arguably represent their constituents. I think this is what SCROTUS can't handle - that we're beginning to wake up to how we're being organized, and choosing in some cases to organize ourselves in new and unexpected ways.

[rug]

15. Neat trick. They both disagree with each other.

[daaron]

19. Well, I AM quite tricky. :D nt

[skepticscott]

17. No, it didn't...sheesh, why is this so hard

for otherwise intelligent people to grasp? CU was based on two points:

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from restricting political speech. By anyone. (kudos for not peddling the notion that CU was based on the principle that corporations are people...most people on this site bollix that up too).

The ability to raise and spend money is inextricably linked to the ability to disseminate political messages (which enjoy a very high status as protected speech), and a restriction on the former amounts to a de facto restriction on the latter. The rather silly strawman of money being exactly the same as speech that is constantly trotted out misses that point. And what's ironic is that everyone actually understands this point implicitly and doesn't even realize it, otherwise the decision wouldn't bother them so much.

[daaron]

18. Sorry for my failure to accurately graph CU -->

using keyboard symbols. Here we go:

ability to raise and spend money o---(inextricable link)---o (( dissemination of political messages )) <-- protected speech bracket

You're right. It's more accurate than money = speech. Longer, though.

I think most folks realize that SCROTUS didn't decide that money actually equals speech. It's a shorthand that boils down their baloney decision to the ridiculous underlying assertion that the Supreme Court Republicans of the U.S. would LIKE to make permanent. It reveals the fallacy of their decision, rather than accurately graphing it.

[skepticscott]

22. And how is a decision

that Congress cannot restrict the dissemination of political speech "baloney" as opposed to a completely reasonable reading of the First Amendment? The fact that the decision may have undesirable consequences (like many SC decisions that I suspect you support) does not make it "baloney" or constutionally flawed.

[daaron]

23. You got the wrong baloney.

Baloney is saying that corporate spending is a form of protected speech. CEO spending might be, but not corporate. Union spending might be (because it's democratic), but not corporate.

That's the dissenting opinion, anyway.

[skepticscott]

24. Again, you have no legal argument

to justify this. "Corporate spending" in general is not being classified as protected speech. The argument is only that corporate spending for the specific purpose of disseminating a political message cannot be restricted, so your argument is just another straw man. Saying that someone is free to disseminate any political message they like as long as they don't spend money doing it is not significantly different in this day and age than an outright ban on that speech, as I explained before.

And the attempt to distinguish unions from corporations is just silly. The Constitution makes no such distinction about whose speech Congress may and may not restrict, and certainly doesn't specify a certain degree of "democraticness" (which unions may or may not possess in any case) before that protection kicks in.

[daaron]

25. OK, so offer some solutions. Don't be a critic with nothing to offer.

Or maybe you approve of Citizen's United? It was a good decision, you think?

If not, then don't just sit back and hen-peck every other poster. Put up or ...

[dimbear]

5. They could get a good buy on some in Utah. Utahns don't put much value on it. n/t

[longship]

8. Isn't there a slippery slope argument here?

If all religions can argue that specific secular policies are an infringement on their religious liberties, can you imagine what our country would be like?

No pork would be sold because it violates the freedoms of Jews and Moslems.

No alcohol would be sold to preserve the religious rights of Baptists.

Starbucks would go out of business because selling coffee is against Mormons' freedoms.

Well, I picked those examples specifically to cite how ridiculous the claim is.

Well, the Catholic bishops have the right to remain here under freedom, or to get the hell out of the USA and go to where they can legally implement their male dominated theocracy. And the same to all the other theocrats.

Religious freedom? Piffle!!

[daaron]

13. Well - if European history is any guide -->

your all-too-short slippery slope list would look more like this:

No pork would be sold because it violates the freedoms of Jews and Moslems.

WAR!

No alcohol would be sold to preserve the religious rights of Baptists.

WAR!

Starbucks would go out of business because selling coffee is against Mormons' freedoms.

WAR!

[rug]

14. European history is so broad.

Do you have a particular period or locale in mind?

[daaron]

21. Are you calling European history "fat"?

Geez. Personally I think the Baroque ideal of beauty could use an encore. "If it ain't Baroque... Baraque it!" I say.

But seriously, to answer your question: nope. I added a commentary intended to be amusing (it amused me, anyway), and choose to let the reader's imagination fill in the blanks. Like a haiku.

[dimbear]

16. Variety is spice. Mix in some expulsions, pogroms, and various ethnic cleansings.

It's a big picture.

[daaron]

20. I think I'd need a longer slippery-slope list!

"WAR!" just seems to say it all, y'know?