A reader writes:
It's funny that you linked to the story regarding the Catholic Church's position on the birth control under the health care insurance rules. My wife, daughter and I went to mass on Long Island on Saturday night at 5PM, a mass that tends to be an older crowd though some families are mixed in. Our pastor was the celebrant and his sermon amounted to him yelling for 15 minutes about abortion, the administration's anti-religious attacks, and contraception. He was particularly upset about the contraception rules – yelling about taking money out of his insurance premiums to subsidy the pill – to the point that he took the Lord's name in vain as he walked in front of the altar. When he was screaming about the money, the only thought that went through my mind was the amount of money I've put into the collection box that was used by the Church to cover up pedophile priest cases.
Another makes a broader point:
Is something protected under the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment simply because a church states it? If the Catholic Church's stance on contraception is protected and the Obama administration's decision is violating their freedom, how far does it go? What if the Church all of the sudden reversed itself and said it's no longer its belief that it should help the poor? Let's say they started to believe that being poor was a purely individual choice that only reflected individual weakness and they didn't want to perpetuate dependency on others by helping people who chose not to help themselves. Would religious organizations such as the religiously affiliated hospitals in question in Turner's article then be exempt from treating people who don't have insurance or couldn't pay for their care out of pocket? Would the federal requirement that all hospitals have to treat emergencies then become unconstitutional on the same grounds that Turner's article argues the contraceptive requirement is?
