In recent years candidates have assumed that they can win over
evangelicals by learning Christian slogans, by masking political
rallies as prayer meetings, and by basically producing a long-form new
birth certificate to prove they’ve been born again. This sort of
identity politics is a luxury of a past era when evangelicals were part
of a silent majority in the U.S., with our First Amendment freedoms
assumed and guaranteed. That is not the present situation.
Yet
the same Baptists and other evangelicals who wouldn't have let
Jefferson near their baptismal pools were willing to check his name for
president of the United States because he was willing to stand up for
religious freedom.
That’s why the most important test of 2016 may be the Thomas Jefferson
Primary —the race to see which candidates offer a clear, coherent
vision of religious liberty when the very idea is contested in American
politics.
In the past several elections, religious liberty has hardly been
mentioned. There was chatter about the sermons of the pastors of
candidates Barack Obama and Sarah Palin in 2008, and about whether
evangelicals would vote for a Mormon in 2012—they did, without much
trouble. But candidates didn't have to answer how they would protect
the legacy of religious freedom, fought so hard for by Jefferson and
his Baptist allies.
Yes, the Supreme Court handed religious-liberty advocates a victory in
the Hobby Lobby case—ruling in 2014 that certain private companies can
be exempt from aspects of the Affordable Care Act for religions
reasons. But who would have predicted a few years ago that a decision
about whether the government could force employers to pay for
abortion-causing drugs would rest on one swing vote on the court?
Even more troubling was the 2012 Hosanna-Tabor decision. Again,
religious freedom won the day in a ruling maintaining a church’s right
to hire ministers apart from government interference. But that court
victory was against a White House arguing a point that no previous
administration ever would have pursued.
In 2016, it doesn’t matter whether a candidate knows the words to
hymns. What will matter to evangelicals is how the candidate, if
elected president, will articulate and defend religious-liberty rights.
This is about more than whether the candidate will repeat clichés about
appointing Supreme Court justices who will “interpret the law, not make
the law.” We want to know how this potential president will rein in an
administrative apparatus that has plunged the country into ongoing
culture wars over, for instance, compelling virgin nuns to pay for
birth control.
[Full]
Yeah, can't go wrong erring on the side of the Jeffersonian view of religious liberty.
ReplyDeleteNo, your personal sect may not get to run things 100% the way you want things run, but neither will "those heretics" in the other sects.
Plus you get to live.
I have a copy of the "Jefferson Bible" (the New Testament without the miracles). Good stuff for a growing kid to read, if you want the morality but don't want to get distracted by theological issues.
I have no problem with evangelicals, unless they promote theocracy (a form of totalitarianism).
Even if I take offense on occasion, I don't feel the need to behead 'em. Well, unless that's not mutual.
"compelling virgin nuns to pay for birth control"
ReplyDeleteThis is confusing to me. The nuns won't be paying for birth control if none of them use it. I hate to stand opposite prevailing conservative notions, but if you check your current insurance company list of coverage, you will see many items you will never need. Pregnancy treatment, for instance. If you or your family don't need it, it doesn't matter, but it's available if needed. You don't pay extra for it.
That's why arguments that center on what is covered by Obamacare policies confuse me. So what if something is covered, but not used. Its presence in the list of covered conditions shouldn't add to the cost of the policy (though Obamacare is quite high). I have a hell of a lot of conditions covered by my policy that won't be treated because we won't need to treat it. But just because the coverage is available doesn't mean I am paying more for that possibility.
Skoonj, you're wrong about your policy not costing more because it provides coverage you won't need.
ReplyDeleteWithout getting technical, premiums are based on average costs so everyone ends up picking up the costs of everyone else. To oversimplify the insurance company simply figures out how much it's going to pay out in claims for everyone and then divides that by the total number of people it insures. Load that for expenses and there you go. [There are some adjustments that are made for age and so forth but that's pretty much it.] So unless your coverage is provided as part of a group where no-one uses that coverage (your nun example would work) then your premium will include the cost of those coverages.
As for insurers not being able to charge for some particular cover (e.g., birth control) that simply gets dumped into the expense line as part of general and administrative costs - nothing is free and the insurance company won't simply give it away.
BTW, Hobby Lobby erred when they claimed that the birth control methods they were objecting to were abortifaceants - they aren't.
Anon....
ReplyDelete"BTW, Hobby Lobby erred when they claimed that the birth control methods they were objecting to were abortifaceants - they aren't"
In your opinion, they aren't. Biologically, they absolutely are. If something prevents a fertilized embryo from implanting, it is an abortifaceant.
The nuns weren't protesting THEIR use of contraceptives that could possibly cause abortion.*
ReplyDeleteThey were protesting having to buy it at all - they do employ some lay people, who might want to procure the meds under their policy, and force them to comply with what they consider evil.
* WHY do the nuns and other religious people consider SOME of the meds to cause abortions, when medical science says that is NOT possible?
Because it's a trick on the part of the medical people to re-classify abortifacient meds. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' leadership rammed through an agreement that they would use the implantation of an embryo as the defining point of pregnancy, thereby making such practices as Plan B (the so-called emergency birth control) officially NOT abortion.
I discuss this further at:
http://outlawbloggers.blogspot.com/2015/02/when-is-abortion-not-abortion.html