Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Readers Respond

The first Amendment protects religious freedom, but also freedom from religion

In arguing the First Amendment right of employers to choose what coverage they should be exempt from providing based on conscience, the Republicans who supported the Blunt amendment (and the three Democrats who sided with them) are guilty of short-sightedness and an absence of humility.

The essence of the First Amendment is the right of all to their own interpretation of religion, not just the right to their own convictions. To maintain that order of tolerance, the First Amendment mandates that the government must not establish religion, but rather allow the practices of all people. That is "the separation of church and state." The principle does not mean, as Rick Santorum mischaracterized it recently, that religious persons are banished from expressing their opinions in the public square. It does mean that government shall make no law that encroaches on the freedom of the exercise of religion by its citizens.

But here's the rub. Government is enjoined from imposing one set of religious beliefs on a citizen who chooses another. Here is where the health care mandate becomes tricky, and the president's proposals have the high ground. They begin by exempting religious institutions from having to provide care that contravenes their principles. But Catholic hospitals and universities, unlike Catholic churches, are not religious institutions but institutions serving the public and employing large numbers of workers in that mission irrespective of their religious affiliation. Catholic belief can be an appropriate criterion for hiring a priest or a teacher in a diocesan school. It is an impermissible criterion for hiring nurses or doctors in their outward mission toward the public. In providing health care coverage for their employees, as they agree that they must do, the question must then not be, what would I choose to do, but what would preserve the employees' right to choose what they prefer.

Here is where the matter of humility is relevant. Though I firmly believe in the religion which I have chosen, dare I insist that others choose as I do, or do I allow that others, with equal righteousness, if not equal correctness, might choose otherwise? Do I insist on their right to do as they wish, even as it pains me that they do so and I argue crisply and loudly against their choice? The First Amendment, marshaled in the name of the right of the employer, in fact argues the radical right of each individual to be free of external impositions. And humility suggests that no sentient thinker think so highly of his or her own positions that they force their commitments on others.

This is where the Catholic bishops err, as do the Republican majority. They have concluded that their earnest moral commitments can be imposed upon others. Even when the president sought to allay the concerns of Catholic hospitals and universities by severing the payment chain and making contraceptive coverage the responsibility of the insurance companies, they demurred because where I have control, I hope to assure that you may not do what I would not do. This, indeed, is at the heart of the abortion debates — that my beliefs and intellectual and religious commitments must be the law of the land. That no one else may believe or behave as I would not. Far from being a First Amendment claim, this is in fact its antithesis.

In the name of humility and the religious belief in the divine image as expressed in another, in the name of the First Amendment and basic American values, it is high time to step away from authoritarian politics.

Avram Israel Reisner

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Why is Mikulski trying to 'fix' the Supreme Court's decision? [Letter]
    Why is Mikulski trying to 'fix' the Supreme Court's decision? [Letter]

    On her website, Sen. Barbara Mikulski proclaims that she is joining other senators to introduce a "legislative fix to protect women's health" following the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case. Whether you are for abortion or against abortion, whether you think your...

  • Pushy pro-lifers [Letter]
    Pushy pro-lifers [Letter]

    Letter writer Mary Catalfamo claims that Planned Parenthood denies any pregnant women immediate, free access to the full spectrum of information and counseling ("Supreme Court decisions won't limit women's rights," July 9).

  • An effort to shame, cloaked in the guise of women's empowerment [Letter]
    An effort to shame, cloaked in the guise of women's empowerment [Letter]

    Regarding the recent rant by small business woman and political activist Michelle Jefferson ("Stop griping and get a grip, ladies," July 11), it seems that she missed the most basic and fundamental message of the women's movement in the last century: don't leave your sisters behind.

  • Global needs: food and birth control [Letter]
    Global needs: food and birth control [Letter]

    While writer Mike Gesker ("U.S. food aid still critical abroad," July 10) rightly affirms our commitment to sending food to poor countries, as a member of Catholic Relief Services he fails though to address the other side of this economic problem.

  • Misreporting the Hobby Lobby decision [Letter]
    Misreporting the Hobby Lobby decision [Letter]

    The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case was confined specifically to exempting some employers from having to pay for medications or procedures that terminate a pregnancy after conception ("Court sides with employers in contraception case," June 30).

  • Hobby Lobby decision a case for Supreme Court term limits [Letter]
    Hobby Lobby decision a case for Supreme Court term limits [Letter]

    The inane Hobby Lobby decision clearly shows it is time to set term limits for the judges of the Supreme Court ("Corporations vs. people," June 30). It is time to get rid of Justice Antonin Scalia — the smuggest among the high court's nine, and Clarence Thomas — the dumbest,...