Constitution and Religious Mandates

As a “political-atheist” I like to wait a while after politicians and media finish telling me what to think and believe about an issue.  Then do my research of objective facts and constitutional law. Then think for myself.  That’s why I did not respond to this issue right after the media’s reactionary rhetoric.

The latest topic to manufacture consent on is mandated contraceptives to institutions run by religious organizations when it runs counter to that religious organization’s tenants.  An unpopular phrase to ask on these kinds of issues is also the logical question …”Where’s that in the constitution?”   Kathy Hochul,  D-NY representative answered that question on 2.24.12 during a press conference by stating: “Well, basically, we’re not looking to the constitution”…on that issue.  That statement sent me ducking behind my Captain America Shield!  Politicians swear on a bible to protect and defend the US Constitution.  What’s happening here?  Time for some research.

One argument in the debate is that the Catholic Church is making these decisions which are out of sync with the modern woman. The Catholic Church has taken a basic stance on reproduction for about 500 years…that the tradition and biblical interpretation defines a fundamental tenant that all life is sacred.  If modern western women wish to descent then it’s an issue for the Vatican not the United States political establishment.  I suggest we put this one aside.  It’s a distraction that makes for good talk show banter. 

A strong argument for supporting the mandating contraceptives has been that 98 percent of Catholic women use them.  Are we now to make policy based on what Catholic women do?  Doing some research on this I found the source of this argument.  The Guttmached Institute in April, 2011 released a study of 7,356 Catholic women aged 15 to 44.  This is the study that Representative Pelosi used for her famous 98% comment that sent the news media and eventually Mainstream America marching without fact checking.  Read deeply and get someone who understands statistics to help.  You’ll find the study shows that 2% of the 7,000+ Catholic women interviewed said they used Natural Family Planning (NFP) in the past year, and 11% used no method at all.  Yes, statistics can be used to redefine the truth.  Misrepresenting a study to deflect a vetting of the constitutionality of a law contributes nothing to the discussion and adds fuel to emotions, not solutions.  The legality of government intrusion into a hospital, college or other social service institution run under the tenants or beliefs of a religious entity is the issue at hand.

So this brings me back to what’s real.  We are a nation of laws as grounded and guided by the Constitution.  There-in lies the true essence of this debate.  Does the regulation meet the legal test of constitutionality?   I’ve found some interesting things.  The record over the past forty years shows that the development of exemptions from government mandates when they may violate the religious views of those impacted by the regulation has been a common occurrence.  Yet the constitutional boundaries for defining “conscience” exemptions are yet to be clarified.  So far, the government has provided exemptions to churches, but not of equal scope to hospitals, colleges, or other social service institutions directly affiliated with a religious organization. Where the constitution stands will not be easy to determine.

However, it is settled Constitutional law that government is prohibited from operating a program that favors one religious faith over another.  Additionally, government cannot run a program that is based on hostility to a disfavored faith.  Guarantees of religious neutrality in government and the assurance of a religious organization to freely run its own affairs without government intrusion is solidly spelled out in the First Amendment.   The Supreme Court has yet to define a “conscience clause” to these broad principles.  Case law has yet to define what the Constitution requires and allows in public policy for such a clause.  Nor does it address how to handle a situation when a religious organization claims its religious freedom has been infringed upon.  There are however, cases where a mandate on birth control for employees of religiously affiliated medical and educational facilities are addressed.

Historically, some significant cases that support a challenge to the mandate: Watson v. Jones, 1871, government may not judge or define the tenets of a faith or religion.  Corporation of Presiding Bishops v. Amos, 1978, government may exempt religious employers from religious bias claims in workplace policies;  Larson v. Valente, 1982, government can not discriminate against a religious denomination, on the basis of church revenue raising;  Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, government may not ban religious practice if done based on disagreement with the tenets of that faith;  Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2012, government must provide exemptions to laws against discrimination for workplace policies involving church leadership and ministry.

There are also court rulings that suggest favorability to the birth control mandate. United States v. Lee, 1982, an employer must pay Social Security and unemployment taxes;  Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 1985, religious organizations must pay their workers minimum wages;  Employment Division v. Smith, 1990, generally applied laws and regulations that do not single out religious organizations are upheld even when intruding on religious practices.

Considerable judicial labor will be required to sort out the mandate debate.  The social behavior, opinion surveys and polls are interesting.  However, we as a people,  need to remember that such rhetoric, while good to agitate the citizenry, promote divisiveness and, generate ratings and poll numbers,  has no bearing on whether an issue is legal or not.   We are a nation governed by laws embodied in the Constitution.  But with the wisdom of our framers, The Constitution is sometimes broadly written so that when the issues of society, unique to an era, are in question, it can be used to guide us.  This requires each of us to do some homework and let the judicial system vet things out.  As yet, this political atheist has not found the objective answer whether or not contraceptives can or should be mandated to religious organizations.  

But I will say this.  The whole purpose of the American Revolution was to liberate the people from the rules and mandates of the magistrates.  The Framers set the government in the position that the citizenry mandates to the government.  And given that the nation was founded and populated by people seeking freedom from religious persecution, this should be an interesting Supreme Court ruling.

Valentine's Day Cynic

I was born on Valentine’s Day.  Throughout the years I’ve found it to be a curse.  Teased as a child.  Expected to magically be exceptionally romantic as if The Muses came to my crib with a love potent.  When asked for my birth date, always the comment: “oh, you’re a Valentine’s Baby”.  No, a Valentine’s Day Cynic I’ve become.  Valentine’s Day is a Hallmark Holiday where the crime of love’s “un-truths” is perpetrated.  It’s the one day of the year that we are reminded to believe something that is only partially true. 

The un-truth is the propagation of a widely accepted falsehood: the idea that love is self-less.  We are taught early on that love is self-sacrifice. And if love is a self-interest endeavor, it becomes covetous. This intuitively makes sense.  However, is love really a charitable state?

Here’s a Valentine’s card.  “I don’t really care to be in your life.  I get no personal joy or value from your looks, fashion, how you act or your view on life.  I get no profit from being in a relationship with you.  No satisfaction emotionally, intellectually or intimately.  I pity you.  All my love.  Happy Valentine’s Day.”

Are we loved for what we lack rather than anything positive offered?  I’m reminded of a beggar in the city. With pitiful love I nobly drop him some change all the while thinking: “Someone should do something about these homeless”.  This view of love is inherent in the belief that love is self-sacrificial.

Real, genuine and true love includes the opposite.  It is a “selfish-spectrum” of behavior.  It is beneficial to your life without involving a sacrifice of another to you or others.  (“It really feels good to do something for someone else”).

It is selfish to love someone because you value that particular person, because the person somehow improves your life and adds an intense source of joy to it.  After all, is it possible to be indifferent to something of value to you?  The effort, time, material goods and focus you spend on behalf of a loved one do not constitute sacrifices.  They are actions taken to ensure the other’s happiness which is of paramount importance to your own.  Vernacular expressions: “He’s kind and considerate and takes good care of me.” “She’s everything to me.” “What do you want in a woman / man?”

Actions of such, done for a stranger or your enemy might be considered sacrifices.  Self-denial implies a belief it is indifferent whether the one you love is healthy, sick, happy, depressed, dead or living.

We are taught love is unconditional.  “Love one another as a brother or sister.” Unconditional love is propagated in the “Hate the sin, love the sinner” dictum.  Standing in front of The Ground Zero Memorial last month, I wondered if that dictum was really true. Would it have made sense to hate the destruction and perpetrators of 911, and then on Valentine’s Day, 2002 send Ben Laden a box of chocolates and a Captain America Valentine’s Day card?  Love when applied this way is rather noble, don’t you think?

Love is far too sacred to be handed out indiscriminately.  Love is the highest exchange of human existence.  It is a spiritual interchange and symbiotic relationship between people for the purpose of mutual benefit.  Mutual value drives a love for one another. 

The highest value of this experience is thus manifested in the experience that love ought to be given unconditionally to you.  You are no more of value than anyone else, and yet worthy of receiving love.  You receive it in spite of anything you do…a causeless gift.

For those who seek to experience love, the demands are challenging.  You have to see yourself as worthy of receiving love.  Otherwise you will not be able to participate in its dance.  Rand wrote in The Fountainhead: “To say ‘I love you,’ one must know first how to say the ‘I”.

This Valentine’s Day enjoy the material expressions of love’s spiritual value – chocolates, cards, and romantic diners.  Ignore life’s frivolousness.  There is plenty of time for that tomorrow.  Enjoy the peace of being worthy of another’s love, and of having found someone who feels the same. 

And if this essay is too cynical for you…well, I WAS born on Valentine’s Day.

Do The Right Thing

Do The Right Thing: Election 2012
January 6, 2012

Winston Churchill said of The United States, after all possibilities and options are exhausted, you can count on the Americans to do the right thing.  What shining good it can do a country when the world respects its leadership.  America’s is affirmed each time the world looks to her during a crisis, or international challenge.  Affirmed by immigrants knocking on her doors, or sneaking over her boarders.  The world looks to America not to be patronized or dominated.  It looks for the best possibilities. The world wants to know that America’s greatness still springs forth from its debating and acting upon right and wrong. America is still the world’s symbol of what a dream could be.

America…the purveyor of things practical…she acquiesced ownership of property to individuals so they can know the benefits of their labor. With Congress’ passing of the Patent Act in 1790, America became the quintessential designer of an economy in which inventors and innovators flourish.  Thus codifying a self-evident principal into human history…that individuals are given the right to flourish by their own accord, unhindered or subject to, lords and rulers.

To the people of many nations, a world without America is a world without the means to be inspired and the inability to participate in a liberating system of innovation.  The dream of becoming something greater than your self is made possible by America’s history and laws, sprung forth from the basic principals of The Constitution.  To do the right thing is to once again return to them so we can be our best selves not only for us but for the world.  The founding principals are still available to keep this kind of America maturing.  To loose them is to loose ourselves and the purpose of who we are as a people.

What Churchill saw in America 70 years ago was true leadership…the fortitude, conviction and constitutional values to dare to define a vision, and dare to see that vision to its fruition.  He saw in America The Framers who dared to pledge their “wealth, lives and sacred honor” to do the right thing, even when the odds did not favor their just cause.  Some historians estimate that only 23% of the colonial people were in support of the revolution.  Our Framers endured that challenge and changed the world.

Plato wrote: “The measure of a man is what he does with power.” The President of The United States arguably holds the world’s seat of power. Thomas Jefferson warned that if individuals are granted unchecked power, then they will have absolute power.  Thus the checks and balance system of our government’s branches.  Sadly, in the past decades, that system has degraded.  Judicial decisions often are absolute.  Regulatory agencies with unelected “czars” legislate via “rulings”.  Congress is Constitutional when convenient.  The Executive Branch is no different. We don’t think about right and wrong enough. When voting in those to be given power we banter over dirty laundry, mistakes in youth, personal lives and gaffs. The lesser given to the prevailing crisis.  We are swayed by negative ads we claim not to like.  Churchill, Plato and Jefferson might encourage us to do better.  To be our best again.

One of history’s greatest documents, The Declaration of Independence, asserts:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”   This means the true power is that each of us is personally sovereign.  We The People loan power to the government.  The government is never to loan power to us.  We the citizens are not subjects of government. We are independent and the absolute authority. When did this begin to wane?

Unfortunately, we are now a generation that forgot what it is that defines America.  Our schools have failed us.  Our media does not help. Each of us must have the courage and conviction to dare to use our sacred honor to ensure the self-evident truths are past on. Forgetting our history is to loose our identity. And with no identity there is no purpose and our civilization will wither.  Is there leadership today that will gently lift us from this withering?  Leaders who when addressing the nation’s challenges, after all possibilities and options are exhausted, hold out the compass set in place by the Framers, so that the world sees the Americans do the right thing…and know the dream will continue.