With the Obama administration’s recent rules requiring organizations owned by religious groups to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their employees’ health insurance, conservative groups and the Roman Catholic Church have gotten all their panties in a bunch, which is particularly interesting since most of them are men. I like the take on religious exemptions for everything by Jonathan Zasloff and conscience clauses by Mark Kleiman in the reality-based community blogs. The most obvious religious exemptions would be for Quakers, Mennonites, and other pacifist religious groups, to have to pay for anything related to war. The more interesting suggestion was by Mr. Zasloff:
Why not include immigration law in the picture?
“You shall love the stranger, for you were a stranger in the land of Egypt.” This is not an isolated Biblical line: it is repeated no less than 36 times (really) in the Bible. So synagogues, churches, and mosques (musn’t forget mosques) should just make it clear that they should not have to obey immigration law: they will hire or provide services to anyone and everyone regardless of immigration status. Any attempts by any law enforcement agency to prosecute them or in any way harass or deport immigrants who are part of their religious communities violates their freedom of conscience to include them (not to mention their rights to freely associate).
I think that both of these authors are offering these suggestions more as tongue-in-cheek parodies than as serious policy considerations. This is not to denigrate in any way the importance or depths of the religious beliefs of any of these groups, including the anti-contraceptive crowd. I believe that what is being legitimately mocked is an immature insistence that religious liberty, at least for their own particular group, requires absolute unchecked freedom. This is a fiction in the real world. The legitimate questions asked by these bloggers have taken us just far enough down the road of logic to see the absurd conclusions that must be drawn if such logic is taken to its nth degree.
As with all freedoms, religious freedoms must be balanced with other freedoms. This will never make everybody completely happy, and fortunately, will not make anybody all-powerful, with infinite, absolute, unchecked freedom. That sounds like the kind of freedom reserved for God anyways, and you’d think that religious folks could respect that, even insist upon it.
I have commented elsewhere on this issue, particularly in the context of the current birth control insurance mandate debate (see Birth Control as a Human Right – Toledo Protest).
I think this issue to be resolved in the real world, religious groups, claiming a particular bastion of truth, need to vote with the existential force of their lives, to make these beliefs real in the world, not just words, particularly words to control other people. In the 1980s and 90s the Roman Catholic Church provided strong leadership in the sanctuary movement which protected persons who are in this country of illegal status due to economic or political violence. The Roman Catholic Church took real risks and paid a price for incarnating their beliefs. Pacifist religious groups have refused to go to war and pay war taxes for generations. As a religious pacifist myself, I was convicted by the United States of America for refusing to register for the military draft, and I was incarcerated for a few months. I think I made my point.
The state cannot be trusted to strike a balance between religious liberty and other liberties. This is precisely why religious groups need to be about the difficult and real work of living out their beliefs in such a way that their importance is manifest to the rest of the world. Since the US made a federal case of it, my resistance of draft registration, I learned that according to the US Supreme Court, that the US has the absolute power to conscript anybody for any reason, and there is no constitutional right, religious or otherwise, to refuse military conscription. The US government could conscript your grandmother if they wanted to. The specific language cited in my case, which was used to reject a claim of religious liberty, was that conscientious objection was by “legislative grace” alone. I for one, do not by the grace of Congress go.
The bottom line: if we are going to live by God’s grace, we will need to fight for our liberties and rights, and real grace is not cheap, it has a cost; if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be worth much now would it?











Every Revolutionary Ends Up Oppressor or Heretic
Every Revolutionary Ends Up Oppressor or Heretic–PEACE QUOTE BUTTON
Every Revolutionary Ends Up Oppressor or Heretic–PEACE QUOTE BUTTON
This cool design is linked to a button, but other great Top Pun products like T-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, caps, key chains, magnets, posters, and sticker sheets can be accessed by scrolling down the product page.
View more Peace Quote Buttons.
For those of you who aspire to being a revolutionary, or wake up one day and learn that you are revolutionary, this Albert Camus quote is for you. Camus presages the results of revolutionary means by pointing out that all revolutionaries either end up as oppressors or heretics. I don’t know about you but I’m a proud member of the national heretics society. In terms of means and ends, I believe that this quote speaks to the issue of violence versus nonviolence. Violent revolutionaries may change or even upgrade the oppressors, but ultimately, they do not defeat oppression, just other oppressors. I believe that violence is inherently oppressive. Now, I am willing to argue what constitutes violence, particularly since I define violence and nonviolence quite broadly. In fact, it may be better to say that I believe that oppression is violence and that nonviolence is liberation. In the end, I see violence is reinforcing the status quo, the powers that be. Thus, violence is not really revolutionary, even though it may bring a lot of outward change. To be truly revolutionary I believe that there must be an inward change that is consistent with any outward change. I think that this is where the heretics come in. Most people will settle for an outward world that advantages themselves, even if it means disadvantaging others. For violent revolutionaries, this typically means disadvantaging one’s defeated foes as some sort of punishment or retributive justice. This is generally accepted as a practical reality, the conventional wisdom and practice of our world. I believe that this type of approach is extremely dangerous since history seems to prove that the turning of the tables simply means new oppressors. However, if one wishes to overthrow conventional wisdom, it is likely necessary to practice unconventional wisdom. If the endgame is equality, an egalitarian society for all of its members, then treating former oppressors punitively becomes a poor foundation for egalitarianism. I think that this gets to the heretical nature of nonviolence. Nonviolence is a way of life, not just a tactic or a means. It means and the ends are inextricably intertwined. More simply put, the means determine the ends. How could it be otherwise? I find it quite ironic that hard-nosed revolutionaries advocating violence somehow think that violence will lead to nonviolence, or perhaps more depressingly, cynically accept that violence is unavoidable. Perhaps Camus recognized the intractable nature of the struggle between violence and nonviolence, thus he laid out the dichotomy of either becoming an oppressor or becoming a heretic. I find myself attracted to the iconoclastic, because it seems the most apt attitude to create revolutionary change. This may be simply tied to the definition of what revolution is: a paradigm shift from the status quo, a change in the nature of the powers that be. You can’t defeat the status quo by the means of the status quo. You can’t defeat the powers that be, by simply wielding authority over others in some better fashion. I think the point is that we should not even be wielding authority over others, and this never quite seems fashionable. As long as people want to lord over one another, then nonviolence will be unfashionable. So, join the unfashionable heretics. Be free to ignore conventional wisdom when it seeks to enslave us, and when it asks us to enslave others. Be free, because being free is the best way to teach others about being free. Be the change. This is a revolutionary.