Separation of church and state

The separation of church and state can be one of the most difficult challenges of creating one’s political views. Personally, I struggle with this separation constantly. 

On one hand, I believe in a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution.

On the other hand, I am a practicing member of the Catholic Church.

On the surface, the Health and Human Services mandate brought more difficulty to the separation of my religious and political beliefs.

The mandate originally stated that religiously affiliated employers had to include contraceptives in basic health coverage for female employees.

After protest from primarily Catholic groups, a compromise was offered.
The insurance companies would be required to foot the bill, which seems reasonable, but many Catholic groups rejected it.

As a Catholic, I am stubbornly opposed to the use of contraceptives.

Many people who disagree with that point of view often argue that I can’t fully understand the benefits of contraceptives because I am not a woman, which is probably true to some extent.

At the same time, my political views butt in.

Instinctively, I turn to the Bill of Rights, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

So, the question becomes, “Does the HHS mandate prohibit the free exercise of religion?” Because it obviously doesn’t establish one.

My short answer is no, it doesn’t — not with the compromise offered by President Obama.

Without the compromise, I do believe the HHS mandate would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

It is a strict belief of the Catholic Church that contraceptives are morally wrong, and the Church opposes them vehemently.

So, making religiously affiliated organizations pay for contraceptives would, in my opinion, be prohibiting the exercise of their religious beliefs.

I actually do have to commend the president for his actions in this situation, despite how much it pains me to do so. Obama saw the infringement on religious freedom and quickly found a reasonable solution.

The opposing Catholic groups have put themselves in a sticky situation by
taking the mandate to court.

The precedent set in free exercise cases by the Supreme Court is that most laws imposing on religious freedoms are met with “strict scrutiny,” which means they must advance a “compelling interest” for the government.

The problem here for the Catholic groups is that the defense can easily cite that the mandate promotes women’s health through the use of contraceptives.

As much as I am against the use of contraceptives, and support the Catholic groups, it is hard to see them having much success in this case.

­— wfgryna@indiana.edu