Reply to Obama is anti-Catholic because he went to Harvard?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Obama is anti-Catholic because he went to Harvard?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]First, you do not have to be an "ardent conservative Catholic" to understand that the "ministerial exception" that the Court recently held bars a church-school employee from suing her employer under anti-discrimination laws applies only where the employee is responsible for communicating the church's teachings.  No one as far as I know has ever suggested that when a church enters into transactions wholly unrelated to the communication of its message (such as renting apartments to members of the public), the anti-discrimination laws are inapplicable.

Second, as I tried to explain on another thread, the Smith (peyote) case does not state the controlling law with regard to generally applicable laws that infringe on religious exercise.  After Smith was decided, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which provides greater protection for religious practices than does the First Amendment as construed by Smith.  Under RFRA, a federal law (such as the HHS mandate)that substantially burdens the exercise of religion cannot be so applied unless that law is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means available for furthering that interest.

As President Obama, erstwhile lecturer in constitutional law, should have known, the HHS mandate in its original form would never have passed muster under RFRA.  Providing women with free birth control is hardly a compelling governmental interest, since anybody who can afford a cell phone can afford birth control.  And even if it were a compelling interest,  requiring Catholic institutions to purchase insruance policies that cover birth control is quite obviously not the least restrictive way of accomplishing that objective.  As the administration has now conceded, the government can just as easily make it possible for women to get free birth control without going through their Catholic employers.

Whether the policy announced today violates RFRA, I haven't thought through, but that is the question interested people should be asking.[/quote]

Blah blah blah.  Don't you people realize this was a negotiation between employers, insurers, and the White House?  The White House wanted someone to pay.  They couldn't get the insurance carriers to do it, so they tried to stick it to the employers.  When that created a ruckus with the Catholic Church, they got the insurance carriers to bend.  Problem solved, this is not about trying to ramrod churches.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics