Anyone who has read my blog knows that I am a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state. I believe the wall should be so high for government intrusion into issues of faith as to be almost impossible to even see over. I believe Native American religions that use peyote in a sacramental way should be allowed. Ditto for Rastafarians (I have to admit I know next to zilch about Rastafarianism so I could be off base here) with regards to marijuana. I get
really uncomfortable even at government interference that requires a Christian Science family to provide medical care for their children. That is how I feel about these issues. That is not the way things work.
Today I read an
article in The American Thinker by Tom Trinko in which he attacks liberals like Sandra Fluke for wanting the government to intrude on religious beliefs. Here's an important quote from the article...
What greater crime can one commit against a person than using the force of government to coerce him to become an apostate to the faith he believes in?
Now, I'm not going to argue the issue at hand, even though I believe the Obama administration's solution was perfect and that the real issue for most conservatives has nothing at all to do with using the power of government to offend religious believers. At it's core, I agree with the statement and would bet that I believe it a lot more strongly than Tom Trinko, although I can't be sure of that. Here's why the argument doesn't work. The government does that all of the time and these folk raise no concerns. The government prohibitions against Native American use of peyote and Rastafarian use of marijuana are simple examples.
Let me give two personal examples. I am a pacifist. I believe that the history of Christianity, the scriptures, and the person of Jesus allow for no other interpretation. Still, I am required to pay taxes that go to supporting military interventions all over the world. Indeed, we spend more on the military than basically everyone else combined and depending on how one reads the numbers, as much as 50% of our federal budget is related to "defense." I am not given a religious option to abstain. Now, you might say that the difference is personal beliefs vs. institutional beliefs. The entire Roman Catholic Church stands against contraception. That argument doesn't fly, though, as there are a number of denominations in the Anabaptist movement, known as "historic Peace Churches" that are officially pacifist. The force of government is used to coerce us to be apostate to the faith we believe in. A second example - I do not believe as a follower of Jesus that there ever is a time when capital punishment is appropriate. Ditto again for the historic Peace Churches. And again, I/we cannot opt out of paying for such barbarity and are so forced to act in denial of our expressed beliefs.
I would agree that there are times when the government can stop certain religious practices. I don't care what you believe, the government has the power to curtail human sacrifice. Bottom line though, that is not what this issue is about. It has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything about culture wars and the oppression of women. And then, there is the fact that Sandra Fluke was speaking on behalf of a lesbian friend with no worry about pregnancy but who uses birth control pills as a means of halting the growth of ovarian cysts... but why confuse a good argument with facts.
