Ecumenical Service for Religious Liberties

Once a month the "Usual Suspects" (clergy from the RCC, UMC, PCUSA, ELCA, DOC and myself) get together to talk about the upcoming Lectionary readings, sermon ideas and other stuff that pops up.  It's a pretty informal gathering done over lunch.  The Presbyterian pastor has been the Reminder Dude for us, sending an e-mail reminding everybody of the upcoming meeting.  The RC priest replied to the most recent reminder (in part) with this:

I was hoping to discern your interest in joining St. A's for an ecumenical service on the evening of June 27th to pray for our country and the protection of our religious liberties.  You may remember that I brought up this issue several months ago and has now become the hotbed of many political debates.  We are hoping to stand together to pray for the protection of our rights which are being threatened.

I really don't see the big threat he does (or is being told to see by the Catholic hierarchy), so I hit "Reply All" with my thoughts on an ecumenical service praying for our religious liberties:

Dear B+,

I read your e-mail asking for our thoughts in joining St. Anne’s on June 27 to “pray for our country and the protection of our religious liberties.”  With all due respect, I see no threat to our religious liberties.

What I do see, however, are attempts to abstain from offering, or outright limiting, full legal protection and care for certain groups of citizens: most notably women and LGBT people.  It appears to me that these attempts to attack minority equality most often come under the guise of “religious freedom.”

In the broad picture, the most recent reports from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicate that there are currently more than 581,000 children in our foster care system.  Of those children, more than 20 percent, about 121,000, are available for adoption.  Other studies indicate that unplanned pregnancies cost the U.S. taxpayers approximately $11 billion each year.  Instead of addressing these issues, the “pro-life” community spends its time and energy on laws that purport to be anti-abortion, but which also frequently restrict women’s access to many sorts of reproductive health services, as well as post-natal care and childhood services.

Census data shows that women continue to be paid substantially less than men for doing the same work, on all levels of our economy.  The gap in poverty rates between men and women is wider in American than anywhere else in the Western world; and the poverty rate for single mothers is double that of single fathers.  Despite this disparity, 47 senators voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which prevented it even coming to a vote.

Additionally, more than 200 senators agreed to vote in favor of the Violence Against Women Act only after it was amended to exclude protection for undocumented immigrant, Native American or LGBT women.  I bring these broad points up because it is most often religious and political conservatives who make the claim that they are being persecuted while they themselves vote to limit equality of women, minorities and people deemed as “Other,” which is a form of persecution.

More specifically, Roman Catholic bishops have gone on record as claiming that not being permitted to exclude contraceptives and hormone therapy when prescription coverage is provided as a health care benefit attacks religious convictions and limits religious freedom.  However, women are prescribed these medications for a variety of reasons other than pregnancy prevention.  No one has ever suggested that any individual must use or refrain from using any medication not in line with his or her beliefs.  Nor does this mandate single out any religious body, as it also covers non-religious institutions and agencies that receive public funding.

The key point here is this:  Faith-based charities, hospitals and other entities that employee and serve the general population, and/or accept public funding, cannot claim to be a private religious institution.  Those public organizations are required to follow public policy.

Religious liberty is not, and never has been, about the ability or liberty to impose one person’s or group’s religion on others.  Religious liberty means that one is free to practice your religion without persecution.  Asking public institutions to offer a full range of public services does not qualify as persecuting the church or attacking religious liberties.

This issue of limiting health care access to women is also related to the current battle over same sex marriage.  Conservative groups have been attacking this as a threat to the sanctity of marriage, “our way of life” and religious liberties.  Again, I see no such threat.

If the state wants to permit same sex marriages to be a recognized union under civil law, with all the benefits and drawbacks of a heterosexual marriage, it may do so.  A couple would then have the right to obtain a marriage license from a local courthouse and participate in a civil ceremony.  That said, just because two people have a marriage license does not give them the right to have that marriage blessed in a church.

Each state defines under its own law who is permitted to officiate at a marriage ceremony; however, of those who are permitted, no state requires them to do so.  The canons of the Episcopal Church state that “It shall be within the discretion of a Member of the Clergy of this Church to decline to solemnize any marriage.”  I am sure the canons of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the governing documents of other religious bodies, have similar wording.  In other words, clergy have never been required to officiate at any wedding, and proposed changes to the law do not alter that.  To make a contrary claim is completely fallacious.

In these arguments, the issue of separation of church and state also comes up.  What I’ve noticed is that certain groups use Christian language to demand separation of church and state on some issues (such as birth control), while at the same time insisting that the state follow a specific, religiously-defined definition for what constitutes a legal relationship (marriage).

These issues are not a threat to religious liberties; but holding a contrary opinion to that of the religious and political conservatives appears to be a threat to their idea of a U.S. theocracy.

With that being said, I respectfully decline your invitation to participate in a service of this type.

In Christ,

Ref+

Thursday's little gathering should be interesting.