If I remember history correctly, there was considerable distrust of Catholicism amongst the American public back in the 1950s and John F. Kennedy had to make a strong speech that he would not be bound by the Catholic Church's doctrines in his presidential decisions, before people would trust him.
Well, if the Detroit Free Press is to be believed, the Catholic Church is indeed worthy of distrust, they have smuggled their religious doctrine into public policy -- via the Supreme Court justices.
Quote:
There is nothing particularly conservative about Monday’s Supreme Court ruling excusing closely held corporations from a federal mandate to provide female employees with insurance coverage for certain forms of contraception.
Flying under the false colors of religious liberty, the five Catholics in the majority insisted they were acting to protect the constitutional rights of two closely held corporations owned and operated by Christian families.
How does one argue that the Detroit Free Press is wrong?
The freedom of religion that we want thus undermines itself by admitting the freedom of religions to advocate inserting themselves into public policy. As the Supreme Court ruling on Hobby-Lobby shows, there is no defense in the Constitution and the Courts from the intrusion of religious doctrine into public policy. It boils down the electorate, and if the electorate is comfortable with such decisions, then they will stand.
Then like every other country where we see strife today, we too, have to begin worrying about demographics -- will e.g., a Catholic or Muslim plurality or majority start having an impact on my freedoms? Would I prefer there to be a Protestant majority or plurality in the country? and so on. The gates of hell open here.
This Supreme Court decision reinforces my distrust of the Catholic Church - Pope Francis is a wolf in sheep's clothing - and my distrust of all religious doctrines that do not respect the separation of religion and state.
Please understand, what I'm trying to point out, by imputing to myself and no one else certain feelings and thoughts, the fears that underlie the strife between the various sects of Islam that we see in the Middle East, for instance. This Supreme Court decision opens the door to "whose religious doctrine prevails?" and undermines our common citizenship.
I'm also curious/fearful to see if the Supreme Court will grant religious exemptions for gay marriage. Surely religious beliefs in that regard are just as strong as regarding contraception.
Can you calm my fears? Can you restore the idea that the religious composition of the United States population does not matter, because religion does not intrude on public policy and matters of state? If you cannot, then you can see why any kind of intervention in the Middle East is utterly pointless - how can you do abroad what you cannot do at home?
The only defense of a liberal, free state is a majority of citizens who exercise their franchise regularly, voting to uphold a free, liberal state. There is no defense for the liberal, free state in the Constitution, in custom, in the teachings of the Founding Fathers, in the intellectual heft of philosophers. While it may seem intolerant, vigorous exercise of free speech to keep in a minority the citizens who believe otherwise, is a liberal necessity. There can be no relativism here.