Religion and State - The Birth Control debate
"...building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists
For many people, both religious and non-religious, left and right, the issue of laws governing birth control are divisive. Not only does it touch upon personal liberty, it also extends into the future hopes of the peoples of this nation and it's demographics.
Here I will attempt to answer questions of conscience and explain my thoughts on the subject and how I conclude that progressive action on this issue can be good and proper and supported in both religious teaching and in the US Constitution, as well as common sense.
Are children a Gift from God?
While personal beliefs differ, this is essentially correct. Yet that does not mean that one must make demand from the sovereign Almighty for his gifts, nor must one...
...demand gifts be delivered at the an inappropriate time. Many Christians exchange gifts at Christmas-time, but not during other times of the year. While this does not mean that one must birth children only at Christmas, it does reveal the traditional belief that there is a time and place for everything, as expressed in Ecclesiastes and demonstrated through the progression of yearly liturgies.
Should we let the Almighty alone decide on conception?
I could start by simply saying "no", but perhaps a better place to start is by asking a true believer what it is they think they can do that would prevent the Almighty creator of the universe from manifesting his awesome power? The Almighty did give us brains and commanded us to use them, however history has taught the faithful that if and when the Almighty wants to have his way, he will have his way and there is nothing we can to to prevent it. Shame on any believer who thinks otherwise. If the Almighty can harden the heart of Pharaoh such that death must be visited on all the first born so that Egypt will let Moses take his people away to the Promised Land, then he would have no compunction or difficulty causing or letting you use a contraceptive with the intent of circumventing it in a natural or miraculous fashion so that one might see, know and acknowledge his omniscience and omnipotence.
More to the point, we've been given brains and we are expected to use them. One might even tell a lad, "Your brain is bigger than your balls for a reason." We are told to take care of our own, but if we allow ourselves to produce more offspring than we can manage, then we've made an error. Some may take it on faith that the Almighty will provide, and that can be great comfort in a time of need and miracles may happen, but we are also expected to till the soil and plant seeds and raise plants that produce good fruit and that limits the size of the field we can properly cultivate. Not only does over-producing cause potential harm to ourselves, but reduces the potential for the "gift of children" to be received by others in our neighborhood and around the world. Well, that's not exactly true, as others may conceived and bear children, only to watch them die of starvation... but this starts to touch on other issues I'll address another time.
Should "natural" planning be preferred to "artificial"?
Why, does not the Almighty allows us to use tools in our other endeavors? Sometimes we are supposed to raise up swords and spears and sometimes we are supposed to convert them into plowshares and pruning-hooks. Those uses are diametrically opposed, from creating death to creating life, which if more extreme, are similar to promoting conception and preventing conception.
And when did natural become synonymous with the Almighty. While many believers agree with natural explanations for many actions of the Almighty, including creation, we often admit and allow for the possibility of supernatural actions and miracles by the Almighty. Did Jesus not heal the sick and raise Lazarus from the Dead? Perhaps, perhaps not, but as believers we are expected to take it on faith that he did, and in all of those cases was the natural progression of biology prevented or reversed. WWJD, indeed!
Isn't allowing/promoting sex that doesn't lead to conception wrong?
Ever since we ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we have been able to make choices between what is moral and immoral, and as we all know, some actions may be either moral or immoral depending on the context. Sometimes we should try to conceive children and sometimes we should not try to conceive children. The Case of Onan is one of not trying to conceive when he was supposed to try, given those specific circumstances, and is not representative of all circumstances.
There are many times when intercourse can occur that will not lead to conception, and while some may proclaim a belief that even this is immoral, others disagree and it should not be the responsibility of the state to take sides, but to allow both sides to have an equal opportunity to make their choice for themselves, but only for themselves. Thus, in this disagreement, it's reasonable for the state to require birth control access for all, so that those who desire it can use it and those who do not desire it can decline to use it.
Should the government tell us what to do instead of faith?
In the present debate about Birth Control, it is your choice as to whether you use it or not. This is exactly the "free exercise of religion" that you are promised in the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is also the way in which one's own testimony is best exemplified, by being allowed a choice and making the one that fits your belief.
Should I be forced to pay for it if I still don't believe in it?
For an individual, it is simple enough to recognize that, according to Jesus, one must "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Stamping "In God We Trust" on the coin does not alter this formula. the concept of taxing all to provide variations in benefits is not immoral. In Numbers 31, we read that the bounty of gold taken in war was to be provided to the Priests in the Tabernacle while the animals, the real wealth in resources, was divvied up among the participants. While some may think this makes the Priests look like money-grubbing goldbugs, we must note that the Tabernacle was essentially a Public Works and the gold implements were infrastructure. The rituals performed there were for the good of all, and not everyone's need was equal, for some may have sinned more than others and were in need of more substantial offering for a proper atonement. Moreover, other requirements for leaving food in the fields for the poor and tithing to support the Levites, many of whom were not temple priests but served other roles similar to our idea of government civil servants, also support the notion of taxation with unequal distributions.
Should my congregation be forced to cover Birth Control if they still don't agree?
Both sides of the argument often support the idea of a Wall of Separation when it suits them, so it may be instructive to see who's trying to breach it in this instance. Historically, Christians ministered to the sick, often with disregard for their own susceptibility, which is one of the reasons for the Rise of Christianity according to Rodney Stark in The Rise of Christianity. While we may debate whether or not ministering to the sick (i.e. the Healthcare System) should be a profit-driven business, it is advanced and complex enough nowadays to be a business and a profession that must have rules and universal, responsible and punishable ethics. While it may seem logical to state that those of one faith may practice medicine in the manner they believe is fit at least to their own people of faith while employing people of that shared faith, it is not an especially responsible idea. In an environment where the business of healthcare is competitive and fluid, those who would compete need to have a level playing field and must, therefore, follow the same rules.
Some may claim it is an issue of religious freedom, but whose religious freedom is at stake here? A patient may be denied needed treatment at a healthcare facility operated under rules of faith that prohibit certain procedures or medicines if there is no other healthcare facility nearby. This was a local issue recently when, of three hospitals, one of faith tried to merge with another non-faith-based hospital, which might have reduced the number of hospitals capable of performing certain procedures. While some of faith may believe that expanding their faith of choice through a ministry of medicine is noble, it must be acknowledged that the state has a role in allowing those of other faiths to not be prevented from obtaining care according to their own conscience.
This is clear in the New Testament where Peter speaks of believers with different customs that they are not required to subscribe to the Jewish Law in order to be believers in Christ with him. When those of faith invite into their presence those who have different customs and beliefs, it is their choice to knowingly allow another to minister in their organization. I would think this is covered as a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification, but if it's not, then perhaps it should be, given the current environment and debate.
Unfortunately, some people of faith make the same mistake of hypocrisy that Peter later made that led to his rebuke by Paul in Antioch when it came to admitting and working with people of different customs due to fear of political repercussions. Thus we have those who desire to take advantage of the ill for monetary gain teaming up with those who would coerce religious indoctrination for an unholy alliance, dressed in the guise of freedom and charity. Now is the time for people of faith who truly believe in both freedom and personal responsibility balanced with compassion and social welfare to stand up against those who would make of themselves global patriarchs of purity laws for all.
The answer is Universal Healthcare for all
This debate would be quieted if everyone had access to common and affordable healthcare without regard to discrimination based on bank account, insurance, or religious belief.
The alternative is to let blind belief and the political professing of profane profiteering lead us into incessant insolvency where our only choice is to turn to those who would force us to conform to their conceptuous calculations for commitment and control or die.