Tag Archives: women’s health

How Does Persecution Begin?

The history of the USA is rich in stories of people who fled countries where their faith made them targets. In some cases they were in danger because their neighbors persecuted and scorned them while a complicit government cruised with hands off. In other places, the government persecuted them directly. Many of these refugees have suffered horrors American citizens can only barely imagine. American citizens welcome people fleeing persecution and give thanks that in this country, we have a Constitutional amendment that protects us from such things.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which became part of the Constitution in 1791, reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


It sounds quite straightforward. Congress may not make any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Common sense has resulted in an understanding that if somebody’s religion called for child sacrifice, the nation would respond with outrage and certainly would prohibit a religion from engaging in that practice. It is interesting to me that this is a common example used to show that as a nation, our understanding of religious freedom balks at burning a child on an altar, precisely because the practice of abortion, and the related practices of contraception and sterilization, have become the elements of a prohibition of the free exercise of religion in this country. The Affordable Healthcare Act, conversationally known as Obamacare, has introduced something into our system of law that raises a bright red flag for anyone who pays attention to the history and daily news of religious persecution around the world.

This legislation requires every employer in the US to provide health insurance coverage for services the law classifies as “preventive” health services. The required services include contraception, abortion and sterilization at no cost to the employee. That is, the employee may not be required to pay the premium, and the employee may not be required to pay deductibles or copays for these services. For the employee, these services must be free. Further, the regulations built on this legislation allow a conscience exemption only for worship institutions whose religious theology prohibits engaging in or providing such services. Institutions such as hospitals, universities, counseling centers, and so forth are not exempted, regardless of the religious convictions of the employers. On February 10, 2012, President Obama announced what he called an “accommodation” in response to complaints by Catholic employers, a response that simply shifted the cost of providing such so-called “preventive” health services to the insurance company itself. Yet when the final rule was published on February 15, it appeared to be an unmodified publication of the initial rule. The Catholic Bishops and numerous other individuals and groups protested to no avail that this ruling was a breach of First Amendment protections.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this particular confrontational issue, it represents only the tip of the iceberg. Every Christian, and every person who lives by the principle that obedience to God trumps obedience to the State, must be concerned by this development. It is hard to imagine any prior administration daring to trample First Amendment rights this way. Catholic teaching for two thousand years has forbidden engaging in contraception, abortion or sterilization, and the government had to know this when the original rule was published. Yet the rule was published, the argument was argued, and in the end, unless some future court ruling changes things, the rule stands. The forcefulness of the government’s rejection of the issue of religious expression is startling, given our history. It may lie in the equally startling semantic corollary to this conversation. The advocates for this rule speak of pregnancy as a disease that must be prevented. Such a view of pregnancy is shocking by itself, but that view is required in order for the mind to accept the notion that contraception, abortion and sterilization are preventive health services, necessary, even essential to women’s health. In fact, the language being used has ramped up the concern about women’s health to such a level that many speakers talk about a universal human right to free contraception, abortion and sterilization.

The concise version of the story of the Affordable Healthcare Act and its mandate on employers to provide all women’s preventive health services at no cost to the employee is this: the State has a legitimate interest in assuring that women do not get pregnant by accident, and if an unplanned pregnancy should occur, it must be easy and cost-free to end that pregnancy. Notice how none of the verbiage uses the word “baby” or the word “child.” Yet the State is motivating women to practice contraception, abortion and sterilization without regard to the scientific truth that these procedures do, in fact, involve sacrificing a child on the altar of somebody’s convenience. In fact, the pressure exerted and the scorn poured out upon people of faith who object to this rule as a violation of their right to live their faith convictions makes it quite clear that the State’s convenience is at least as much at issue here as the convenience of women who don’t want babies.

The antagonists in this conflict are 1) the State (the United States of America personified by the President of the United States of America and the Congress of the United States of America), and 2) people who hold religious convictions prohibiting them from practicing or supporting the practices of contraception, abortion and sterilization. The State has by its actions asserted that to assert that God’s law has a higher claim to obedience than the law of the United States of America is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

It is not farfetched to say that the State wants to be a god for whom citizens sacrifice children.

Historically, when the State requires any citizen to disobey God in order to obey the State, it signals the beginning of real persecution. The path from this moment of truth to some more gruesome evidence of persecution may be fairly lengthy, or it may be so short that we get there tomorrow. In many countries, the path for the State is smooth and unfettered, because many countries have no legal protection in place for Christians. In the US, there should at least be a fairly massive outcry against imprisoning or torturing Christians, but many more subtle and devious methods of persecution exist, and many are already in place in our culture.

This post is about an explosive and obvious moment when our country stood on a precipice and actually appeared to fall over the cliff. Perhaps rescue from this particular assault will appear from somewhere. Perhaps not. Christians cannot count on a drift away from the precipice. When someone with power exerts that power and subdues a powerful opponent, the high is like the first injection of heroin. The memory of that moment always calls out for repetition.

 Christians must be faithful in word and deed. We must speak out and stand up for the right to free expression of our faith. In the USA we have that privilege today. We must not let it dissolve before our eyes in a semantic cesspool.

Truth and Lies

How was Hitler able to persuade the Jews to march docilely off to their own deaths? He lied to them.

How does any government achieve goals that require people to cooperate in their own destruction? The government lies to them.

This blog is devoted to discussing the way we as Christians live in a secular humanist culture. We will talk about faith practices that help us mature in the faith, and we will talk about issues that arise when our faith becomes visible to other people and powers in our culture.

Today’s question is: How will Barack Obama succeed in fooling Christians into agreeing that it is okay to suppress religious expression? The answer is: lie to us.

We need to be very clear that the issue is not about women’s health or contraception or fairness to poor women. The issue is whether our constitution permits the federal government to require people of any faith to do things which their faith regards as sin. The question applies equally to Hindus or Muslims or Baha’i. At the moment, the focus of this discussion is the teaching of the Catholic Church and the interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Most of the media and many Democrat leaders have attempted to change the subject of the conflict away from freedom of religious expression. They have tried to make everyone focus on whether it is a woman’s right to receive contraception services at no charge to herself, and whether such services have become a right because they are integral to her good health. This issue is a political agenda item, not a fundamental right belonging to a human being by virtue of that human being’s existence. The right to express faith freely without hindrance by government is a God-given right, a right due to the very nature of being human, a right protected by the First Amendment.

We must not be diverted from the real issue, because unless we face the real issue, our own faith convictions are at risk. Last week we saw how collaboration between government and media can lie to us by diverting our attention from the real issue to something else. The government lie is that the big argument is about whether a woman ought to have to pay for her contraception. The truth is that the big argument is whether the federal government has a right to force anyone to act against the principles of any faith.

As a person of faith, you must consider two things in regard to this situation. First, are you willing to speak up and be counted among those who believe that an exemption for conscience is demanded by the First Amendment? Second, when the government demands something of you that conflicts with your faith, will you hold firm to your own faith? Be sure that if the federal government does not shun a battle with the Catholic Church, no religion is exempt. The Catholic Church has both a large membership and prodigious resources with which to fight for its position. Few denominations could begin to rally either the numbers of people or the money that the Catholic Church can pour into the battle.

Every person of every faith needs to stand with the Catholic Church in this matter. When you do that, you are not addressing the issue of free contraception for all women. You are demanding compliance with the First Amendment protection of religious freedom. Every person of faith ought to treasure and assert that protection. Christians in ancient Rome would have loved to have such protection. They were compelled to fight wild animals and savage warriors with their bare hands, because there was no protection for their right to serve God and refuse to worship the emperor. Think not that the US government is different. The principle that threw Christians to the lions in the Roman Empire was this: Must a human being obey every demand of government, even if it requires disobedience to God? That conflict was not about contraception or abortion or free healthcare; it was about power. Today’s conflict that is being portrayed as centered on healthcare is not about healthcare at all; it is about power. Christians today of all stripes, as well as any other people who have any other faith would be well advised to recognize this truth. This battle is about every human’s right to serve God and to put God ahead of government. This is a war for your spirit, not your health.