SCOTUS and Healthcare reform

It should not be a surprise that a conservative court found a conservative healthcare reform law to be constitutional. It is still incredible that supposedly conservative politicians, including those that crafted the mandate approach, implemented and proved its effectiveness in a state are daily calling for its repeal.

This strikes me as sour grapes, that the first serious attempt to controls and reduce healthcare cost used their concepts but was championed by a Democratic President.

The SCOTUS ruling  apparently takes pains to clarify that it was ruling on the constitutionality of the law not it wisdom or popularity. We now have the added confusion of administrative rules, not specified by the legislature, that redefine what is and is not a religious institution. I suspect that another SCOTUS issue will have to deal with this affront to the first Amendment.

On A Clear Day - - -

Americans United for Life (AUL) recently posted this video that helps focus the conscience protectioon issue more clearly.




You can find AUL's website here.

What's Really Important to President Obama?

Micheal Sean Winter, writing in the National Catholic Reporter captures exactly the frustration of classic liberals with President Obama. As I have written in earlier posts the liberals shunned in the move of the Democratic party far to the right in the 80s and 90s are now spread over Democratic, Republican and Independent categories but they do vote with a conscience. 

"I confess I no longer understand Obama. He did not go to the mat to end the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich. He did not go to the mat for comprehensive immigration reform. He did not go to the mat to close Guantanamo Bay. He did not go to the mat for Card Check. He did not go to the mat for a public option in the health care reform. But, he went to the mat over the principle that a Catholic college or charity or hospital is not really religious.

The president not only is the chief magistrate of the land, he is the leader of the Democratic Party. I know I am something of an odd duck by being what I call an “Ella Grasso Democrat.” Grasso was the first woman to be elected a governor of her state in her own right, not succeeding her husband. She was pro-labor. She was pro-Israel. She was pro-higher taxes on rich folk. She stood up for the little guy. Unlike other male Democrats – Kennedy and Gore and Gephardt and Muskie – she remained pro-life. I believe that it is the historic calling of the Democratic Party to stand up to the moneyed interest and say that the common good, not just the individual pursuit of profit, is a moral obligation and a necessity in a free and just society. I am simply not interested in a Democratic Party that is so beholden to the fundraisers at Emily’s List, so consumed with lifestyle politics, that it is willing to thumb its nose at those working class voters who really do care about social justice and for whom that care is a part of their religious beliefs. And, if liberals no longer care about a robust defense of the First Amendment, well, then, we do not deserve the presidency. "  (Michael Sean Winters in National Catholic Reporter)

Read the rest of his article here. He is a Catholic, a liberal and a blogger who understands how the conservative Democrats forced liberal Catholics, Labor Unionists and human rights activists out of the party or essentially silenced them starting in the 80s.

Yes I know that Deacon Greg posted this same quote but my minuscule audience most likely has little overlap with his huge audience and mine needs to read this also.

Where Does Political Liberalism Stand On Religious Liberty?

I am frequently told that my political views are not liberal. I reject that judgement based on my own education in philosophy, politics and my life experiences. Even as a grade scholar in a conservative farming community I was taken by the grand idea proposed and undertaken by the American people and represented in the founding documents, in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights. I clearly understood that the phrase "liberal democracy" referred to the ideal set summarized in the Declaration of Independence as:

"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, '. . . "   (US Declaration ...)

I know from years of history classes that over time this ideal became, step by step, more real and less just a dream.

     (1) Voting rights were expanded from just land owners to all men.

           (Our democracy became more liberal)

     (2) The election of senators was vested in citizen's votes rather than a political appointment.

            (Our democracy became more liberal)

     (3) Persons held in slavery were set free and made citizens and eventually voters.

             (Our democracy became more liberal)

     (4) Woman were empowered to vote and hold office.

               (Our democracy became more liberal)

And this list only deals with voting rights and a similar list can be made for other unalienable rights.

This dimension of liberal progress is based upon moving towards the ideal expressed by:

       - "All men (persons) are created equal"

       - "Government . . . . derives it just powers from the consent of the governed."

Are we there yet? NO and our present political environment threatens to move us in a less liberal direction.

I know from life experience that if you try and live these American  ideals and/or the ideals of Christianity that the world will classify you as a liberal. In a sense my Christian idealism and my American idealism got me assigned the label of liberal. Since the American ideal set forth in the founding document is Liberal Democracy I have accepted that political label willingly.

The current issues regarding Religious Freedom on one side and The Right to Health Care on the other side threaten a definite move away from liberal democracy. Here is Robert Barron, theologian and documentarian, writing about this very issue of the meaning of "liberal" in connection with the first of these issues.

"There is a modality of secular liberalism that is not aggressive toward religion, but rather recognizes that religion makes an indispensable contribution to civil society. This more tolerant liberalism allows, not only for freedom of worship, but also for real freedom of religion, which is to say, the expression of religious values in the public square and the free play of religious ideas in the public conversation.

 

Most of our founding fathers advocated just this type of liberalism. But there is another modality of secularism—sadly on display in the current administration—that is actively aggressive toward religion, precisely because it sees religion as its primary rival in the public arena. Appreciating certain moral convictions as disvalues—think here especially of Catholic teachings concerning sexuality—it seeks to eliminate religion or at the very least to privatize and hence marginalize it. In doing so, it indeed reveals itself as totalitarian, for it allows no room in the public space for anything but itself.

The reason that the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—is so important is that it holds off the tendency, inherent in any government, toward totalitarianism, even if that means the totalitarianism of the majority.

The very first amendment, of course, guarantees the free exercise of religion in our country. Our founders obviously feared that even a democratic system, predicated upon a repudiation of tyranny, could become so tyrannical itself that it would seek to intrude upon the sacred realm of the religious conscience. As Jefferson, Toqueville, Lincoln and many others have seen, our democracy is especially healthy when it disallows a concentration of power—political, economic, or cultural—in any one place."

Read his entire essay here. 

While he is willing to create a new category to facilitate calling the present national administration liberal I am not willing to make that distortion in the language. The now documented efforts of certain Democratic Party leaders to marginalize liberals (Catholics and other religious voices, labor unions and human rights activists) in the party starting in the late 70's was a move to the right away from liberalism and should not be labeled 'liberal' because such a usage is a corruption of our language making our present political shouting match sound like mass confusion to many of our ears and certainly the ears of the ears of people all around the world that yearn for liberal democracy in their countries.

The Spin Goes On

Upon getting home from work today I sat down to read the paper and scan through the news and talk shows I frequent. In 20 minutes all the spin tactic I described below were on full display. One of these was demonstrated by 'expert' guests, moderators and even news persons stating with certainty that polls show that over half of Catholics agree with the HHS policy. The the polls they are referring to are then shown with appropriate acknowledgement of the polling organization and the question asked.

Right then you can see the proof of the 'bait and switch' in action. I have seen polls from several organizations offered on the media in the last day to demonstrate "Catholic" approval. In every case, that I have seen, the question asked was, "Do you agree with the policy of including contraceptives in the list of items to be covered in the insurance requirements of HHS?" 

The Bishops, via Archbishop Dolan, did not ask the President or HHS to change their opinions about contraception, they asked that Religious Institutions not be forced to pay for coverage of actions that the Church considers immoral. Until the polls refer to that question they do not seem relevant to the issue raised by Democratic,Independent and Republican critics of the HHS policy defining what organizations are religious.

Despite the fact that CBS labels the clip as "The Contraception Issue" here is Archbishop Dolan talking the "Religious Freedom Issue" with Charley Rose and  Erica Hill. I am providing a link rather than an embedded video because CBS has retracted their permission to embed this video.

http://youtu.be/HZ75snNhliE

Now if a polling organization actually asks citizens, including Catholics, about whether  "religious organizations should be forced by the government to fund actions considered immoral by their faith"  then we would have a poll about this issue. Suppose such a poll shows that a over half of Catholics are OK with the government forcing the Church to pay for contraception coverage would I then agree the government should do it?  I would not agree and here is why.

In light if the founders intention, in the first article of the Bill of Rights, it make no sense that  the government can force religious organizations violate their ethics based upon the findings of statistical polls. Imagine that a poll discovers that over half of Lutherans would rather go fishing on Sunday morning than attend services.  The government then could issue a regulation requiring all religiously based social,  health and insurance services with religious ties including Lutheran Social Services, Lutheran hospitals and and Lutheran Fraternal Insurance Coops, pay for their employees fishing trips if they occur on Sunday morning. Trivial, yes, but if the the courts approve the governments right to  do it in the insurance case the precedent will have been establish and the government could do it even in this trivial case. Not a good way to resolve a Religious Freedom Case, in my opinion.

Religious Freedom - Not A partisan Issue

Tomorrow is caucus night in Minnesota. We usually see DFL (Democratic), Republican and 'Independent' caucuses here. For several days I have been speaking to and emailing groups about the importance of being involved in the political process. In my party we most likely will hear arguments that say nobody really cares about religious freedom. In the other major party they will likely  be told not to worry about this issue because they are going to win. Independents, as usual are seeking some sense of where to throw their votes or whether to throw their own candidate into the void. (They have been successful in the latter choice in Minnesota)

Among my friends and relatives are persons of all political persuasions and many different religious views but all of them value the religious freedom aspect of our US culture and government (yes it also protects the rights of atheists). We must not let this issue be thrown into the strange intractable polarization that our political process has become over the last decade. Thus I am asking that my fellow Americans act to be sure that all political organizations act to protect this first of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution from being be put into that context.

Newt Bucks Republican Tradition Again

Watched most of the Republican Debate on Saturday and was again impressed by Newt Gringrich's willingness to buck the Republicans' habit of pandering to the media and the media's perception of the electorate. Here is a YouTube of Newt's injection into the debate. It was an injection since neither the moderators (from main stream media) nor the other candidates brought up the question of religious freedom.

Now I have to admit that "the media", in my life, includes a lot of Catholic Press, TV as well as what is called 'alternative media' (blogs and special interest news sites). Newt is right on about "Main Stream" (Read 'big business') TV/CABLE in this case, however.. While it is a the republican talking point that 'Media' is liberal the fact is that Big Business media is anything but liberal because it serves is economic self interest before all other interests.

Maybe you noticed that the Tea Party and the Occupy movements say the same thing about about most politicians.