Contraception, religious freedom, and local decision-making

Issues are important but most important is to remove from the government the power to control our individual decisions.

So should an organisation run by Jehova's Witnesses be allowed to refuse to pay for blood transfusions? Or should Christian Scientists be allowed to deny any medical coverage?  

 I was recently told that the first settlers of the United States didn't come in search of the freedom to practice their own religion as much as they came to practice it without any competing authority that might restrict their oppression of OTHERS with different religious views.  Back in Britain, they lacked that power to oppress, so they headed West where they could be kings and oppress with greater impunity.  Would like to know if someone has any expertise to verify or alter this viewpoint.And speaking of politics not designed to play people, as you cleverly point out is taking place here, this article on Gandhi in an old New Yorker was excellent (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2011/05/02/110502crbo_books_mishra ).  As was once written about Gandhi:  "He was the last political leader in the world who was a person, not a mask...the last leader on a human scale."  

 Thank you for your post John.   I am glad that you write about other cool stuff, and that you see the big picture.   Raw cheese rules!The overreach of the federal government (i.e. central planning efforts)  by Obama and his dept. heads affects all of us - no matter what we eat or believe or practice.  Another person pointed out, and I completely agree, that we as individuals should have our own health care, and should not have our employer be involved in it, in any fashion. It's a practice created during WWII I believe, and as Reagan said "Nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program."   Furthermore, we all know that most people change jobs quite a few times during their lives, and it's a frustrating process to lose your insurance, get signed up with a different company, wait 3 months to get approved, try learn all the ins-and-outs and new technical jargon, which usually means in the end having to find a new doctor, new dentist, etc.  Ugh!Just like your employer does not know the best kind of health coverage that each employee needs, (they buy it for everyone and that's what you get - there is not choice) a few people in Washington do not know the best thing for any American citizen- only you know what is best for you.  

 Health and safety regulations don't exist just to give Big Gummint something to do. My mother had a high-school classmate nearly die of brucellosis, and had a very different reaction to news I was drinking raw milk from a hippie farm in my college town. And having seen major food-borne illness outbreaks at Amish restaurants in Indiana, I've come to see the value of her wisdom (and wouldn't buy raw ANYTHING from those folks). But as you point out, the question here is whether an employer should be required to fund medical practices they disapprove of. Questions for the room: Is a scientologist who owns a business justified in refusing to cover psychiatric care? Can a Jehovah's Witness say screw the whole thing? Or are benefits like health insurance simply baked into a compensation package? If I'm a Methodist data-entry clerk in a Catholic hospital, are they justified in telling me I can't spend my salary on birth control? Why, then, do they get a voice in how I spend my benefits? (Will you be going through my *entire* medical chart, Father?) It's certainly true that this issue has reinflamed the culture wars; what I find amusing is the howls of protest from the right, which has always been more adept at this stuff. Sucks to have that stuff backfire on you, doesn't it? 

Interesting post. As an Orthodox Jew, I want to express my solidarity with my Caltholic friends and fellow-citizens in the face of these waves of religious persecution and prejudice. I know that if Catholics are being singled out for persecution, then my faith group is direly threatened, as well.  If  this country has come to have less respect for faith-based differences than we did even in Colonial days,  it is in deep peril.I'm very concerned about prohibiting well-established food practices based on over-sanitization. I'm not opposed to a certain amount of regulation: That is salutary and necessary. I'm not opposed to government regulation of raw milk, or, for that matter, of kosher or halal slaughtering operations. Such regulation is necessary, and I applaud its enforcement, although it should be within reasonable bounds. But I'm very concerned that traditionally-respected food-sourcing may be prohibited entirely, or reglulation be made so difficult to comply with that supplyers will simply move offshore (so Southwesterners will import raw milk from Mexico or American Jews will increase the already-sizable proportion of the kosher beef we import from Uruguay, Argentina, Mexico and Chile).As for marijuana enforcement, I'm a bit more conflicted. Look, if our citizens want marijuana to be legal, then we have to legalize it. And, by the way, we should tax it, as well, probably much more than many other necessities, as a "luxury" item with a fair amount of abusive risk, through addiction as well as creating dangers of intoxication. But not enforcing laws which are on the books only creates corruption in society. And it gyps the government, as well. I'm for this government collecting as many fines as it needs to to fund legitimate government needs. ( I just wish they'd collect more recycling fines). I live in Manhattan,  which was British during most of the Revolutionary War. My Tea Party friends can call me a Tory (they were the conservatives in their day), but special luxury taxes and regulation on tea, or tobacco, or alcohol, or marijuana, in order to pay for the defense of our common interests, as well as for other purposes, still makes a lot of sense, just as it did in 1775. One of the great mistakes, I believe, of Reaganism and especially of Newt Gingrich himself, was to de-regulate simply by cutting down enforcement of laws, or selectively enforcinfg them, rather than by  striking down the laws and regulations entirely. It's wrong to single out laws and groups for enforcement: The laws, even some that are bad, have to be enforced, across the board, or all our government will remain dysfunctional, and we will be seen as a weak people without the will to enforce our laws. 

 I loved this post.  I too am not Catholic or even religious, but I also don't like how the government has stopped my farmer and configated all of his raw milk, computers, and telephones.  As an unschooler, I want to educate my children in a way that feels right to me without harrassment.  I don't smoke marijuana, but I do think it should be legalized.  I think there are many things like this that are individual rights and  birth control for Catholics should be a right they have.  Great post!

 Amendments: This land was INVADED by people who wanted the freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit. In the process, they harmed others.  This country was founded by free white males with property.  They wrote the Constitution for themselves and THEIR posterity. Likewise, the Catholic male hierarchy wants to maintain ITS status quo. As history proves, only when the masses reach a sufficient stage of pissed-offed-ness do they rise up and rebel. People power will precipitate changes in the availability of medical marijuana, contraception, and raw milk. As always, the majority rules, except when in ignorance of facts, it abdicates to a minority quite willing to rule in its own interests. Got milked?

Correction: The Catholic church is not opposed to birth control. The church endorses the rhythm method. So theyre nit opposed to all birth control, just effective birth control.

PS--Heres something every catholic schoolgirl knows. If you want the pill, tell the doctor you have cramps. It's really tha t easy. Every Catholic health plan and institution will provide the pill, just not if you ask for it so you can have sex without making babies.

I know it's irrational and weird, but so is the immaculate conception.

Born, raised and it was my choice to remain so. To begin, thank you for your post. I can't speak for all Catholics so I will only cover me. What I believe is what I believe. If you believe something else, so be it. For example, have friends who are Methodist, Protestant, etc who support/believe in things I don't. I still call them my friends. So your entry rings true, just let us follow our faith without outside intervention.

As for your three, duh! I'm an organic gardener. The raw milk thing is one big joke with the way the FDA are handling it. They say it's to protect the masses, yet their own numbers say Past Milk killed more people in the same time period. With that said, the whole guideline thing has been screwed up for decades now. Your last point is unfortunately being driven by the extremes. From what I've seen, maj does help cancer patients thru treatment. But waaaaay too many people are using it under false pretenses. So I'm all for it as long as both sides find a logoical center.

Thanks for writing.