Perhaps the time has come to take yet another look at tax emptions for churches.
Why? Well, with all this dialogue from religious leaders, the vast majority from the Roman Catholic Church, about where their purview ends and where the government’s dominion begins, someone’s tippy toes are pressing on the line separating the two. One side, led by Republican opportunists and Catholic leaders, claims President Obama has been tramping all over the church’s religious rights, as “spelled out” in the First Amendment. While this is difficult to imagine, let’s assume they mean it. The other side, led by a growing posse of women, says it isn’t about any religious right but, instead, about a woman’s right to medication.
This current confrontation emerged when the Obama Administration released its proposed policy under the new medical bill. It suggested that all American women, no matter their employer, should receive equal access to contraceptive medications, and the costs should be assumed by the various insurance policies or similar arrangements the employers choose, such as self-insurance. Well, Right Wing church organizations, which have admittedly been waiting for this confrontation, jumped up and screamed that freedom of expression was now in jeopardy.
I think we’ve all seen this in the news lately. You’d think the sky was falling.
As I said earlier, the “response” to the Administration’s policy was chiefly led by the Roman Catholic Church. (I’m not singling the church out here. It singled itself out.) Keep in mind this country’s traditional strategy on keeping national policy and church matters separate as you turn a critical eye on today’s “debate.” There is a difference between political leaders and candidates advocating specific alterations to national policy to align them with religious dogma and, on the other hand, actual church leaders, adorned with regalia and funny hats, thrusting themselves into a national policy debate.
To me, the bishops have stepped over the line, and perhaps we need a serious national debate about the rights of freedom of speech and the rights to worship as you choose. Just possibly we might settle for some kind of compromise that also allows governments to start taxing billions of dollars of church property which today avoids any real financial responsibility for armies, navies, highways, streets, police and fire protection, and God only knows what all. We could solve our national financial crisis, among other things, and go ahead and let religious leaders entertain us with their bemusement at the same time.
I believe even religious leaders might decide to back off. Why? Well, at base, a growing percentage of Americans have already abandoned that befuddlement. After all, were we to hold to the church’s “knowledge” refined only in the 1960s, we would be certain the world was flat. Imagine a flat world. What would that look like? Well, they imagined it, and over the centuries they imprisoned those who disagreed. Maybe some voters need to be reminded about the Inquisition and the Crusades. I prefer being able to talk about a round world without fear of prison.
Then, of course, there’s that freedom of speech issue. Where and how did the Administration step on that? I’m beginning to think, sadly, I know more about the First Amendment than those church leaders do. They should read it sometime. That would be a debate I would encourage. You think watching basketball is fun. Try a debate like that.
Let me close this tirade – and I won’t be the last person to address this growing debacle – with three current political “issues” – one wise, one unwise, and one just stupid. We have noticed that Mitt Romney declines, nearly refuses, to discuss his relationship with the Mormon Church. Some pundits believe discussing it might transform him into a real human being, a warm and fuzzy person with blood in his veins. However, it is entirely possible that one of his sensible advisors has told him not to do that because there’s some kind of tenant in the Mormon Church that hints that once you are a teacher and leader in the church, you are in a ministerial role thereafter. Romney judiciously avoids raising questions Americans might have about putting someone so branded into the White House. So, it is wise he avoids this spiritual abyss.
Second, there’s the new Republican darling, Rick Santorum. Not only does he have as a chief financial backer someone who believes we should drag contraceptives back to the 1920s, but he flees reams of previous statements about religion and public policy that would have children absorbing religion in schools and combating a battery of public laws loaded with pious booga-booga. If I wanted to live in a country governed by religion, I would consider Iraq or India.
The third issue is Santorum’s declaration that President Obama practices a “phony theology.” In itself, that implies a lot about the man’s agenda. Oh, gosh, he says he didn’t mean anything religious. Then why use the word “theology?” It’s loaded. Santorum’s toes cross the line. Meanwhile, an increasing percentage of Americans – a fact which deeply troubles all religious leaders – sees all theology as a product of smoke and mirrors.
As for me, a Michigan resident, I will celebrate when the GOP wagon train saddles up and moves to Ohio or Pennsylvania – anywhere but here.
