Disengaging church and state

Print More


In the the original culture war of the 1870s, among the steps taken by Prussian Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck to reduce the power of the Catholic Church was to require that all marriages be registered civilly. As Eric Garcia-McKinley points out on his Everyday Historian blog (h/t Paul Harvey), church authorities decried this change in the Prussian state’s definition of marriage as an infringement on their religious liberty. Now that the secular state controlled marriage, they complained, a priest and a nun could be married! As indeed they could–if, as individuals, they chose to be.

Such removal of religious authority from public business is pretty much where we are in our own American kulturkampf. The difference is that now it’s the church, not the state, that is choosing to disengage from a system it finds at odds with its principles.

Take the case of adoption. Beginning in the 19th century, the American practice was to give responsibility for placement to agencies affiliated with particular religious bodies–on the presumption that children ought to be be raised in the same faith as their birth mother. But in a number of jurisdictions that give same-sex couples the same right to adopt as opposite-sex couples, Catholic social service agencies have gotten out of the adoption business rather than conform to civil law.

And we can expect that the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, if upheld in court, will lead some Catholic–and other faith-based–organizations to stop offering health insurance to their employees.

One can, of course, question whether the Catholic hierarchs really believe the mandate to be the unprecedented threat to their religious liberty they say it is. As Marc Stern notes in his review of the jurisprudence in Religion in the News, it was based on existing California and New York laws–that were litigated and found constitutional in 2004 and 2006 without provoking the kind of alarm the ACA has.

Yet if Cardinal Dolan et al. have now decided to draw this line in the sand, that’s their privilege. And if it hastens the day when health care ceases to be a responsibility of employers, so much the better.

  • Ted

    Hastens the day when employers no longer furnish insurance a good thing? Only if Obamacare survives the Right Wing fanatics. Otherwise a slew of people more will start showing up in the emergency room when their ‘common cold’ starts to get out of hand, and their care if needed may be much more expensive than heading the matter off early would have been. And the cost will fall on local or state budgets, depending on individual state laws, and on state or local taxes. Joy to the world.

    Now if Obamacare is alive and well, mandated insurance, common pools to lower costs, and subsidies up to the full amount of the premium depending on income, then the cost of goods manufactured or services provided by that employee will go down. Markets will improve accordingly. That’s good.

    Then if the recent norm is in effect, the additional profit will be glommed onto by the boss, and the worker will get no raise.

  • I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and can damage your high-quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. It was this time that thomas sabo necklaces certai http://atlblogs.com/rptut/archives/2003/11/greedy-hobbiteses.html#comments

  • this imagе jest bez wątpieniawspaniałe.