Whose Freedom of Religion/Conscience?

I received a comment from a reader, which is posted on the preceding blog comments. Occasionally, I post a response as a blog, because I believe the comment contains sentiments/ideas that touch on general interest.


Dear Silias,


In regard to your statement,



“Actually, democracies have THE WORSE [worst] record of protecting minority rights of all types of governments, historically speaking.”


I would very strongly disagree with your assertion. You need merely consider the Twentieth Century to realize the absurdity of such a claim. The Third Reich under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong (all totalitarian regimes) together arguably murdered more people than all other governments combined in all previously recorded history. Incidentally, democracies constitute a small sliver of all forms of human government throughout history, the overwhelming majority have been authoritarian governments in which the common people have had little or no voice in decisions directly affecting their daily lives such as the subject at hand, their health care.


I agree with your sentiments regarding minority rights in the face of majority rule; in fact, I have argued that very point in previous articles. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the courts exist to protect minority rights (admittedly imperfectly) against majority tyranny.


That stated I think you have misunderstood the thrust and main point of my article.
I think it prudent, as my old philosophy professor used to say, to begin by clearly defining our terms. Specifically, what is meant by the expression “Freedom of Religion/Conscience.” Black’s Law dictionary, Seventh edition, defines Freedom of Religion as,



“The right to adhere to any form of religion or none, to practice or abstain from practicing religious beliefs, and to be free from governmental interference with or promotion of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment and Article VI, Section 3 of the U. S. Constitution.”



Since laws are the codified values of a people, Black’s definition provides us with definition that represents both the legal, and culturally normative understanding of the term Freedom of Religion/Conscience in the USA. Reading that definition it becomes apparent that this right is primarily conferred upon individual citizens and secondarily upon associations of like-minded people (including religious organizations).


The bishops claim that a mandate that Catholic institutions (e.g. universities, charitable agencies) provide insurance coverage (such coverage normatively includes reproductive services/procedures) to employees, students and their dependents violates Catholic’s Freedom of Religion/Conscience.


The bishops are attempting to redefine Freedom of Religion/Conscience as being primarily, or at the very least equally, accorded to institutions (e.g. the Catholic hierarchy) and secondarily, or at most only equally, to citizens. The NCCB seeks to interpret a special right/privilege that they will first, use to effectively impose their views/beliefs and practices upon subordinated people (i.e. employees, students, staff, and their dependents). Second, to carve out and enshrine a special legal status for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) within American society.


Ironically, the practical effect of their demands will involuntarily impose NCCB beliefs/values/practices on citizens, who happened to be their employees/students/and dependents thereof, regardless of the beliefs, values and practices of these subordinated people. In effect, the NCCB will trample on the Freedom of Religion/Conscience of individual citizens (employees/students/and the dependents thereof) through raw economic coercion. If you work for us, or attend one of our universities, we will involuntarily exclude you from normative health care insurance benefits that contradict the employer’s religion, regardless of your religious beliefs or practices.


An employee, student, etc of a Catholic institution would have their conscience effectively overruled by the bishops; unless they could afford to pay for these services/medications/procedures out of pocket and many cannot. This has the practical effect of violating the Freedom of Religion/Conscience of employees, students and their dependents.


The fact that a majority of Catholics find no moral issue with disregarding the bishop’s prohibition of contraception, unmasks that this is NOT about the issue of Freedom of Religion/Conscience, as it has been historically understood. Nor is this per se about contraception. This is about power and control by the bishops of American law and society, period.


This is not an attack on Catholics by the government; in fact, it is the government protecting the Freedom of Religion/Conscience of all its citizens (including Catholics) against a powerful elite attempting to force its very narrow interpretation of Catholicism involuntarily on others by redefining Freedom of Religion/Conscience and attempting to intimidate elected officials.


The most succinct and insightful statement on the hierarchy I’ve yet heard was voiced by the Prime Minister of Ireland, a historically Catholic nation, when he said to the Parliament of that nation,




Prime Minister Enda Kenny denounced to lawmakers last week what he called "the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism – and the narcissism – that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day."

P.S.: More "Special Rights" for Catholic institutions.

20 September 2011 the death of DADT.

Today President Obama joined the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen certified the repeal of the unjust Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). The clock now starts ticking for the sixty day time period after certification. On 20 September 2011 gays and lesbians will be able to serve openly in the U.S. Armed Forces.


Obviously this is of immense significance for gay/lesbian members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their loved ones. It is also a huge “game changer” for the national debate on Marriage Equality, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA] and the repeal of the unconstitutional and falsely named Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA].


In 1947 President Harry S. Truman desegregated the U.S. Civil Service and the U.S. Armed Forces. That decision set in motion changes in social attitudes. Those changing attitudes helped to usher in tectonic social changes in America. The landmark Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education that ordered the desegregation of schools and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are both connect to Truman’s courageous Executive Order of 1947.


Imagine the impact that the repeal of DADT will have in “military towns” across America. Suddenly locals will see Marines, Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors who are gay/lesbian. Inductees into basic training will be formed to be respectful of service members with same-sex orientations. These values will become engrained and affect civil society.


Sunday the State of New York will recognize Same-sex marriages. This is a huge victory for Marriage Equality nationally, since New York is one of America’s most populace and influential states. In September the California Supreme Court will issue an opinion regarding the standing of the “Yes on Prop 8” proponents to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Prop 8 in California.


Make no mistake, there remain many battles to be fought until Full Federal Equality for LGBT people is achieved. Beyond that happy day, there will still be many struggles to end bullying and bigotry in our nation. However, it is good to celebrate and draw strength from today’s victory.

President Obama: 'I've Met My Commitments to the LGBT Community' No Sir, you have not!

President Obama: 'I've Met My Commitments to the LGBT Community'
No Sir, you have not!


The fact Sir that you can make such an absurd statement betrays a grotesque ignorance of the inequality that remains enshrined in American law on a Federal level. Even more disturbing is your apparent insensitivity and cynicism to such inequality and the suffering, despair, destroyed lives, broken families and, as we witnessed last fall, tragic suicides of LGBT youth.


Let us visit some of those inequalities:


1. In those states where Marriage Equality is the law, Same-sex couples are denied federal recognition of their marriages. This means that the IRS, Social Security, INS do not grant to those couples and their children the rights that are automatically granted to heterosexual couples. In the real world Same-sex, couples and their children are taxed at higher rates. Those couples do not receive the Social Security benefits that they and their spouse paid into over a lifetime. A legally married person in Massachusetts (or any of the other states that recognize [d] their marriage) can have their spouse deported by INS, effectively destroying that family and causing incalculable trauma to both spouses and their children for a lifetime.


2. You signed legislation from the Congress that authorized you to repeal the unjust Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law on 22 December of 2010. To date, DADT remains enforced and members of our community are currently being discharged under this discriminatory law. It is within your power, as President, right now to issue a stopgap order that would effectively end these injustices that are destroying the lives and careers of innocent people. You have chosen not to issue that order.


3. As President of the United States you command, what your predecessor Theodore Roosevelt called “the Bully Pulpit.” You could have used your position to promote the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA] that would have protected huge swaths of members of our community from wrongful termination and denial of benefits. You choose to do nothing.


What is most disturbing is that you have, and continue, to squander the opportunities that the people of this nation have placed into your hands. You appear to place Reelection to the Office, in which you are called to serve, above the interests of the people whose votes; sweat and treasure put you into that Office. Here is the truth regarding your much touted signing of DADT [that you have yet to enact]:


"White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs expounded on Obama’s commitment to legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as he acknowledged that the president hasn’t yet reached out to senators to lobby them on the issue.

Asked whether Obama had made any phone calls to “swayable senators” such as Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted “no” on moving forward with the defense authorization bill in September, Gibbs replied that he doesn’t believe the president has spoken to the Maine senator on the issue."



Moreover, what moved Obama on DADT is reported in The Daily Beast,

"It’s critical for LGBT people to remember that a fulfillment that always heads Obama’s list—the dissolution of DADT—happened not since folks were calm with a occasional wink, though since groups like Netroots and GetEQUAL spurred him into action. The boss had been formulation to wait until 2011 to pull for repeal. But Lt. Dan Choi, a plainly happy Iraq War maestro who became a open face of antithesis to a policy, altered a diversion in Mar 2010 by chaining himself to a White House fence and removing vital media pickup. There was nonetheless some-more coverage a subsequent month, when another GetEQUAL romantic heckled Obama’s inaction on DADT during a fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

And that’s when things began to shift. According to GetEQUAL’s cofounder, Robin McGehee, a contributor from a White House pool emailed her immediately after a Boxer occurrence to say, “DADT hasn’t even been on this president’s radar, though now it’s a usually thing he’s articulate about.”



Even now, you continue to drag your feet on DADT certification. Your inaction leaves some in our community wondering if you will trade repeal of DADT to our opponents to obtain some political concession.


The best argument that your most ardent supporters/defenders in our community can muster is that you are acting out of political expediency and that you have done more than any other President has ever done for our community; let us take a closer look at those claims. The former argument serves as an apt explanation of why most people use the term “politician” as a slur. The latter argument is easily dismissed by the progress of history and that is due to the real world sacrifices of activists, people of moral conviction, and elected officials like Governor Cuomo who have honestly served our community, the people of New York, our Nation and World consciousness.



The only time we hear from you is when you want to take the credit for other’s work, when you have your hand extended for a contribution, or you need volunteers to staff your campaigns and for us to give you our votes. The rationale, “The other side will work against your interests, he is the lesser of two evils. Therefore, you have no choice but to vote for Obama.” Lesser or greater, both are evil and the only way to defeat evil is to name it as such and reject it. We deserve better, but we will not get better until we demand it and refuse to accept miserable crumbs and excuses meant to quiet us.


Sir, our patience is wearing very, very thin. ACT! Start by announcing your public and unqualified support for Federal Marriage Equality. ACT! Pick up your telephone and call the Secretary of Defense and the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Certify the repeal of DADT and in the interim issue an Executive Order to immediately stop all discharges under this hatefully unjust law. ACT! Pick up your telephone and order the Department of Justice to drop charges against Lt. Dan Choi. IF you did these ALL of these today you would make a good start towards making true your claim, “I've Met My Commitments to the LGBT Community.”


Not until you can sign legislation for the LGBT community, as your predecessor President Lyndon B. Johnson did when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for your community, can you honestly claim that you have met your commitments to us. That requires that you DO for us what President Johnson did for your community. That means that you must take risks, place your comfort and security beneath a real commitment to the ideals you beautifully enunciated as a candidate.

God Save the President?

The British system of government distinguishes between a Head of State and a Head of Government. The Queen is the Head of State and as such, she presides at State banquets, receives foreign dignitaries, and officiates at ribbon cutting ceremonies, generally smiles, and waves at the masses. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government and as such sets budget priorities, decides foreign policy, directs the Armed Forces and leads Great Britain on a practical level. The Prime Minister has to role his/her sleeves up and does the dirty work of politics, the dirty work of governing. Unlike the Queen, who is above all that and simply presides graciously and serenely as a paternal/neutral mascot.


In the United States of America, the President is BOTH the Head of State and the Head of Government, at least until Barack Obama assumed the office of President. Take the current budget crisis that threatens to shut down the federal government for example. Democrats on Capitol Hill are frustrated that the President only became directly involved in budget negotiations this week. Democratic members of Congress feel that he needed to be in the fight a few weeks ago.


All of this is déjà vu with Obama; remember the Health Care Public Option fight? In his State of the Union address before both houses of Congress, Obama gave away “Single Payor” even before the battle for Universal Health Care began. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to do the dirty and hard work of governing, i.e. pushing the legislation forward. Only at the last-minute after the idea of a Public Option had been scraped and even modest Health Insurance Reform seemed doomed, did Obama deign to become directly involved and get his hands dirty.


The same can be said of DADT, ENDA and now DOMA. ENDA could have been passed and become the law of the land by the 111th Congress, if Obama had pushed for it. DADT could have been repealed last summer, if Obama had pushed for it. Instead, his subordinate, Secretary of Defense Gates argued before the Senate Armed Services Committee to postpone repeal until another redundant report on repeal was issued on 1 December 2010. Conveniently, that report would come out one month after Mid-Term Elections in November. DOMA was declared unconstitutional by Judge Virginia Phillips, yet Obama (until very recently) directed his subordinates at the Department of Justice to fight to defend DOMA in the courts. Obama would prefer to appear for a cameo shot at a signing ceremony after all the “politicians” have hammered out a “done deal,” a deal that is politically popular in the polls and “safe.”


Compare/contrast with how Republicans govern when they control the Presidency, e.g. “W” and the invasion of Iraq, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, etc. After his Election in 2004 “W” famously said, “I have political capital and I intend to use it.” Obama prefers to remain serenely above it all, the great reasonable compromiser who will listen to both sides and negotiate a “reasonable settlement” acceptable to both parties.


Obama is, like Queen Elizabeth II, an outstanding Head of State. He delivers inspirational and moving speeches. He possesses a commanding public presence that projects confidence, strength and poise. He, like a young Elizabeth II, is attractive and, like the present day Elizabeth II, is dignified. Like the Queen, Obama fills the room and fills hearts with hope in the face of adversity.


The problem for both Obama and for the Americans that voted for him is that in the United States, being the Head of State is only half the job. On a practical level, it seems that in the 2012 Election Americans will have a choice between a Centrist Republican and a Right-wing Republican for President. Now, who benefits from such a voter choice?


The real winners, yet again, will be the Corporations that fund (bribe) politicians. These Corporations view social issues as an entertaining distraction meant to draw voter attention away from the need for an effective energy policy, finance reform, universal health care and a foreign/military policy that represents the interests of the American people and not of Multi-national Corporations.