Birth control, Catholicism and Sharia law

The recent dust-up between the Obama administration and The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops raises important questions about the boundaries of religious freedom, ones we’re still in the midst of unraveling.

Birth control is part of the health-care mandate. Catholics are, and have always been, officially opposed to birth control as an idea. Note that the Catholic position is not rooted in concerns over abortion, though they’re opposed to that, too. Catholic dogma is opposed to “every action…to render procreation impossible.” This is “an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” This includes birth-control pills, condoms, having ones “tubes tied” and vasectomies. Some Catholic institutions are therefore understandably offended by a law forcing them to pay for these things (it should be noted that many Catholic institutions disagree with the bishops).

Many groups have moved to the side of the USCCB. Seeing this as an issue of religious freedom, National Clergy Council president Rev. Rob Schenck sent a hand-delivered declaration to the White House entitled “State of Emergency and Time for Speaking.” Other conservative Protestant groups have made similar moves.

This defense of Catholic law contrasts sharply with those who denounce allowing American Muslims to live by Islamic law. This comparison might seem unfair; we often think of Catholicism much differently than Islam. Some forms of Sharia law make social demands quite foreign to the American ethos, demands equally repugnant to American liberals and conservatives. I don’t intend to argue for a better understanding of Islam here, though the benefits of that in our globalized world seem obvious.

More importantly, these two systems of religiously inspired social law help us to clarify limits on religious freedom. However we draw the boundaries between government interference with religion, the rules have to apply equally well to Catholics and Muslims. As Michael J. Gerson recently wrote in Capital Commentary, “First, religious liberty is owed, not just to individuals, but to institutions. It is not enough to say that citizens have the right to believe whatever they want. They also have the right to participate in religious groups that maintain their identity and standards.” According to most readings of the Equal Protections Clause, this is as true for Muslim individuals as Catholic institutions.

The debate between the bishops and the Obama Administration is not just a debate about religious freedom or a debate about health care. It is both. To pretend one issue is not present is to ignore the complexity of the issues involved. The birth-control pill was one of the most significant steps forward in human health ever, approaching the importance of the smallpox vaccine. Those who would fight for the freedom of the bishops ignore this at the risk of dishonesty. Just like some versions of Sharia, the USCCB believes faithfulness to God demands means keeping the benefits of modern medicine out of a crucial part of their lives.

Does religious freedom demand the government allow this? Maybe, but those who say so must have a rule that can be consistently applied by law. Whatever that rule is, it applies equally well to our Muslim neighbors who would like to live under some form or another of Sharia. To say it another way, the right of Muslims to observe their religion even when it conflicts with American law is almost universally rejected. If we maintain this position, we must also reject the request of Catholics to be exempt from paying for birth control. There is a point at which the government must overrule religious belief, as cases of parental neglect demonstrate. But how do we define that point?

What Do You Think?

  • Should religiously affiliated institutions be required to include free birth-control coverage in their employee health plans?
  • How would you define religious freedom in this debate?
  • Is it fair to equate the Catholic church's position with Sharia law?

 

Comments (4)

Leave a Comment
Personally I think this is not an issue of religious discrimination as much as bureaucratic government. Currently about 10-15% of working adults with health insurance do not have any coverage of contraception. Obama is trying to fix that problem. Some Catholics (and some protestants) view contraception as morally wrong.

The issues about why they do so I find problematic. But that is not really the point of your post.

I do think that the issue is very similar to the fact that the Republican candidates of pretty much all complained about the war against religion in the US and at the same time (literally in the same speeches) said that Obama was inappropriate in apologizing for burning Korans.

Religious freedom, only for those that are part of the majority religion is not religious freedom.
Stephen,

I find that most of those people I know (and myself) who view the contraception mandate and the minimal exception as an issue would (and do) also support extending similar protections to Muslim organizations. Consider, for example, the Becket Fund's defense of Muslims in France with respect to wearing headscarves.

Also, many of those protestants (such as me) who take issue with the mandate have no particular qualms with birth control and are concerned entirely with the religious-freedom issue.

js
The difference is that Sharia seeks to go beyond governmental laws.

Sharia is not a strictly a religion issue. Sharia also sets the stage for a theocracy, dealing with politics, financial issues, and crime. If Sharia demands the death penalty for adultery, in a state that does not permit the death penalty, who wins?

The contraception mandate is the opposite. We want to STOP the federal government from going beyond what our Constitution demands.

Should Muslims be able to worship as they wish? Absolutely.

Should Muslims be able to set their own civil laws, and corresponding penalties? Whole different question.
"The birth-control pill was one of the most significant steps forward in human health ever, approaching the importance of the smallpox vaccine. "
Really? The pill isn't popular in Japan, we're pretty healthy, birth rate is below replacement levels and abortions are dropping.

 

Leave a comment

A login account is required to leave a comment

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now

{/exp:mx_jumper:out_global}