Despite election losses, some writers and activists among the Christian Right continue to chip away at religious liberty in the United States while striving to defend that freedom.
Timothy P. Carney’s column, “Re-elected, Obama takes aim at religious liberty,” appearing in today’s regional Examiners, exemplifies this trend.
Carney opens with an ominous warning, “The Obama administration says your right to live as a Christian ends if you go into business.”
With his first few words, Carney makes some startling assumptions about Christianity. We may have grown up believing that Christianity is a religion rooted in spiritual rebirth, shared community, charity to the least fortunate, stewardship of the Earth’s resources, and liberating Creation from injustice. But now we’re led to believe that Christianity can also encompass for-profit businesses that pay employees too little to afford health care, leave female employees with no practical alternatives to abortion, or deny workers and customers freedom of religious belief and expression.
Carney’s article seems to assume that 1) employees are not entitled to religious freedom, while business entities are; and 2) taxpayers won’t mind if religious businesses exempt themselves from the laws and taxes that apply to other businesses. The second assumption has grim ramifications for “pro-life” advocates who believe businesses should stop creating — or profiting from — the very same conditions that compel female employees to seek abortion. That assumption also negatively impacts the religious liberty of LGBT and non-Christian customers.
Whatever its faults (and there are many), the health-care reform law does not compel employees to seek an abortion. But the alternative that has been sought by conservative churches — denial of insurance coverage for abortion alternatives — would likely result in more abortion, not less.
Businesses are entitled to voice their moral and religious values in the public square. But so are workers. The health-care reform law simply ensures that — barring creation of a national health system, which is opposed by conservatives — businesses continue to fulfill their social duty to support employees and communities, and to reverse the collateral damage done to infrastructure and community health by businesses’ water and power use, transportation activities, and pollution.
Community values are essential to public morality. Churches that oppose the health-care law for reasons relating to reproductive health appear willing to put aside certain community values and individual religious liberties for the sake of a strategy regarding abortion that is counterproductive.
Are Carney and the churches for whom he speaks protecting life and religious liberty — or defending practices that may result in a quick profit, but risk harm to community, life, and liberty?
While it is true that the Christian “Right” (how endless more control over people’s lives by a few over the many is on the same side as individualism, which is, presumably the “right,” I don’t know, and I always ascribe this fundamentalist dictatorship as the “left” — or maybe we should chuck the Jacobin parlance from Revolutionary France, and call it “controlling” or “non-controlling” …) is now just arguing with other Christians, and everyone else, over who shall be our leaders — it’s like Bolesheviks against the Mensheviks, or the medieval Catholics against Protestants – they are arguing over the spoils and the power — it is also true that in order to perform this “social duty” you ascribe to companies, they must earn a “dirty profit.” For without the “dirty profit” they cannot have any employees to help; though, with the close of the company, they will pollute no more, I guess.
One of the biggest mistakes that our nation did was to tie health insurance to employment — and almost serf-like tying of a person to his work for mere sustenance — and if that had not happened, or changes, (not under Obamacare, no,) then Mr. Carney wouldn’t have to worry about what his buddies’ companies have to support, and you wouldn’t have to worry that companies aren’t doing their um, “fair share” or “social duty” or something — and we both get what we want.
That you misunderstand what “profit” is is not unusual — so many do — but, I note that I profit daily from your work, which then, is profit to you too — and I don’t consider it dirty for you or me. Profit is not only cash, but merely, gain, by whichever measure we, the consumer or purveyor, describe it.
And I note, too, that every gay bar, B & B, and bath house I’ve ever been in has a “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sign — which, in gay places, mostly means the sexual majority. And if we are to maintain the right to not serve the heteros, they must, alas, maintain the right not to serve us. Or shall an anti-gay Christian fundy group sue to be allowed on a gay cruise?
Jim said “And I note, too, that every gay bar, B & B, and bath house I’ve ever been in has a “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sign — which, in gay places, mostly means the sexual majority.”
There’s no truth to that and I’m sure you know it. The “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sign is common in all manner of businesse’s and refers to a business’s right to refuse service to unruly or abusive customers. Gay institutions most certainly do not refuse to serve heterosexuals, the sign is there to inform would be gay bashers they are not welcome.
Jim said “And if we are to maintain the right to not serve the heteros, they must, alas, maintain the right not to serve us.
We don’t maintain the right not to serve heterosexuals, we maintain the right not to serve abusive people just like any other business does. Any business that makes its money off the public is obligated to serve all of the public excluding that narrow aforementioned exception. That is just total B.S. to say gay businesses refuse the right to serve people merely because they are heterosexual.
And no one said profit is by nature dirty. It becomes dirty when one places profit ahead of doing the right thing as is the case with such Christians.
Priya is correct. I made a distinction between profits that are healthy and those that are not. If all profits were quick and dirty, then I would not have bothered with the redundant adjectives “quick and dirty.”
You go, Priya! The same thing hit me when I read Jim’s comment. If one serves the public, one cannot refuse to serve a member of the public in accordance with the anti-discrimination laws. We all know that. There has to be a reason beyond just plain discrimination to refuse service. A gay cruise ship cannot refuse the cruise to a straight couple. Only if that couple interferes with, harasses, intimidates, or otherwise causes disturbance/trouble with the other passengers would the ship be required to intervene. Otherwise, enjoy your cruise (if you really like being with all those gay people!) :)
This comic is also very fitting:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_loyydnFXq71qd7hayo1_500.jpg
Carney opens with an ominous warning, “The Obama administration says your right to live as a Christian ends if you go into business.”
Yeah, because asking you to follow the same rules/regulations as everyone else is oppression. Pass the smelling salts.
Well gang, religion is not a business, government is not a business, and education is not a business.
Christianity before 325 CE (AD), according my Christian History professor at a Lutheran Seminary, was more “faithful” to the teachings of Jesus than it is today. When Christianity became the religion of the state, Christianity lost is “honesty.” The Reformers attempted to rectify that difficulty, but only unleashed countless schisms which have created “Christian companies (churches)” that merely seek more followers to increase their coffers.
Government does not make a product; therefore it is not a business. Yes, it should act business-like in money matters, but its goal is not profit. Government’s role is serve its citizens. In “Indianer” we are outsourcing this and that to save tax money while the businesses accepting the outsourced services make a profit. The end to this “magic budget fixing” will be a disaster over the long haul.
Education is not a business, yet countless states are moving toward charter schools and seeking corporations to run schools. Once again, all for the profit of companies. Our students are not a product as I have heard some say. They are a precious gift to our civilization. When we see them as checker pieces, we do them and ourselves a disservice.
The Religious not-so-Right (RnsR), in its supposed support of religious liberty, is merely attempting to jump on the profit bandwagon. Christ Jesus would never, let me repeat that, would never agree to that. What is happening in much of religion is unethical and immoral! Period!!! The same goes for education and government!
If you change “what is happening” to “what has always happened”, I might beinclinedto agree with you.
“Government’s role is serve its citizens.”
Nuh-uh. Government is there to protect the citizens from each other. Protect the weak from the strong. Protect the poor from the rich. Protect minorities from majorities. It is there to see that all citizens have a fair chance and are treated like fully equal citizens. It is not there to “serve” anything to anyone. In order for it to perform its function as protector, it should have strong central powers and a big system of checks and balances, the latter of which have suffered erosion lately.
The new definition for religious liberty=the freedom to hate and discriminate…