The dechristianization of America

"No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law."   So wrote the French assembly in an otherwise salutary “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” at the start of the revolution of 1789.  The subtle subjugation of religious liberty to law began the “dechristianization of France”.  The attacks on the Catholic Church culminated in 1790 when clergy were made employees of the state, and a bloody Reign of Terror was unmoored on the Church and the country, continuing for ten years. 

The nationalization of the Church, as it were, was a vengeful overreaction to its material status, to be sure, yet envy and retribution make destructive politics.  In 1793, the Declaration was changed to “The right to express one's thoughts and opinions by means of the press or in any other manner, the right to assemble peaceably, the free pursuit of religion, cannot be forbidden.”  Yet, secularization, laïcité, continued beyond respect for religious freedom to anti-clericalism.

Why, then, has The White House taken to a modern day dechristianization of America, where we have the First Amendment free exercise protection against such reactionism?  It is no coincidence that the President called the head of the Church in the United States, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, on the eve of the 39^th March for Life to announce that all religious employers must provide contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees—in violation of Catholic articles of faith—or face fines under the Affordable Care Act.

Landing on the wrong side of a 9-0 Supreme Court decision several days earlier in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which decision protects churches in their employment practices, did nothing to faze the unctuous and insensitive behavior of the putative defender of the Constitution.  We now have the odd situation where parochial entities may hire whomever they please, as long as they provide them free pills (free, as long someone else pays).

The Church’s reaction was swift and correct: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”

Does the Church having standing for civil disobedience?  That is the wrong question.  The specific question ought to be, Can the Church continue its mission and charism if it does not resist? And the general question: If we don’t stand now for the foundational religious liberty that defines America, then when?

The scope of the problem is sweeping.  The Church in the U.S. runs over 615 hospitals serving nearly 90 million patients; 7500 schools and 221 colleges educate three million students. Catholic Charities provides food, shelter, adoption, immigration, and other good works for 10 million.  Catholic Relief Services is often first on the scene in disasters and provides humanitarian aid for 80 million poor around the world.  All this is possible because the Church, comprising 70 million Catholics, has been free to minister in accord with her teachings and beliefs, and therefore cannot be as effective if constrained against them.   The choice between faith and fines that was foisted on her is destructive.

Her very reach, and her defiance of the left’s social aspirations, made her a strategic target in The White House cartelization of the health care industry, and abhorrently makes this foremost defender of life a backdoor channel to government promoted abortion.

As with many issues into which it stumbles, the administration may have unwittingly plied the country with an opportunity to make incandescent the true meaning of Jefferson’s expression “wall of separation between church and state”.   It does not refer to the banality of selecting the proper adjective for “tree” in state capitol rotundas during Christmas. 

In letters to the Danbury Baptist Association, later referenced by the Supreme Court, Jefferson wrote,  “We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws.  And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.” 

Has Obama not accepted Jefferson’s solution?  Or his quiet?  Or his comfort?

Madison “regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States”.

The Church may stand on the First Amendment as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993), affirmed by Supreme Court in 2006 on the Federal government: “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the burden “(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

John Locke, considered the father of classical liberalism, established the philosophical principle of religious freedom in A Letter Concerning Toleration.  “Only the Magistrate ought always to be very careful, that he do not misuse his Authority, to the oppression of any Church, under pretence of publick Good ...

"These things being thus explain’d, it is easie to understand to what end the Legislative Power ought to be directed, and by what Measures regulated; and that is the Temporal Good and outward Prosperity of the Society; which is the sole Reason of Mens entring into Society, and the only thing they seek and aim at in it. And it is also evident what Liberty remains to Men in reference to their eternal Salvation; and that is, that every one should do what he in his Conscience is perswaded to be acceptable to the Almighty, on whose good pleasure and acceptance depends his eternal Happiness.  For Obedience is due in the first place to God, and afterwards to the Laws.”