Political Physics: Force = Madness X Absurdity

The religious hard-liners have foisted another misguided political decision into America’s national health care policy. Their right to free-speech allows them to present their opinion, their right to petition the government is in full force unabated and unthreatened by any attempted action of the government, and their right to exercise their religious beliefs are not only unchallenged but as fully protected as ever. So in this religiously dangerous political environment, a large portion of Christian religious groups and organizations are up in arms about the governments assault on their beliefs. Their claim: that the Obama administration is trying to force them to go against their beliefs.

At the center of this perceived attack on personal conscience is the forced obligation to provide employees with access to birth-control under their health care insurance. But as a Christian I am disturbed by the same level of disregard that these faith-based groups and organizations are remonstrating about regarding their responsibility to treating their fellow men and women with respect, compassion and charity. I am troubled that in defense of their freedoms, which aren’t being abridged or threatened that they are causally tossing aside the rights and freedoms of others. This is not only an unchristian act, but also a debasement of our American freedoms, principles and values.

If I understand their line of argument, they contend that they are being forced to pay for health care and medical procedures that they are opposed to on the basis of their religious beliefs. This does sound like a totally improper and immoral invasion upon their faith. But claiming it; doesn’t make it true, or valid, or appropriately judged. The physics of their position depends upon the axioms that that claims are dependent upon.

Are they being forced to pay for a health care benefit that they do not accept as a morally correct act? Are they being forced to violate their right of conscience in any action? Does their religious belief require or direct them to oppose and resist the government imposed obligation regarding health care? If the axioms of their position are neither self-evident nor necessarily consistent with their beliefs then the derivative conclusion of their faith-based actions are invalidated.

The first axiom of being forced to pay for benefits they see as immoral. The religious groups are not being asked to pay for particular procedures. They are paying for health care benefits for their employees. Certainly it is axiomatically true that health care as a righteous act by an employer and socially expected by Americans in general. There is nothing immoral about providing for others’ health care, an imposed obligation to do so doesn’t violate Christian principles which should never require the compulsion to begin with. Further, the faith-based entities’ efforts to extend their judgment of their right of individual conscience to be applied to the individual health care needs of another person and onto that other person’s own individual right of conscience is wholly without merit and without consistency of freedom of religion precepts. In America, your religious beliefs provide a range of authority and responsibility for yourself, and go no further than the choices you are responsible for making; another’s health care needs and decisions are not inside that sphere.

The contention that they are forced to act against their beliefs is axiomatically invalidated in that they are not required to engage in any action that their faith prohibits them from personally doing. They don’t have to use any birth-control methodology that they don’t approve of. No one cares if they do or if they do not use or engage in such activities. They are also not forced to pay for specific procedures of a health care insurance program unless they are self-insured in this area. And in that case if they object to providing an option directly because of their objection then they only need to provide an appropriate form of compensation in lieu of the coverage that their employee has a legal right to obtain.

For some religious groups they contend that they are forced to oppose the government’s requirement that they provide health care coverage that acknowledges the rights of the covered to their own beliefs and conscience. They don’t phrase it that way of course, but they position their resistance in terms of their faith-based moral imperative. They have a legal right to voice their objection but then no more or less so than those who support the position that even religious-based organizations are responsible to provide health care programs that provide the beneficiaries with legally sanctioned treatments. I also admit that their views may be consistent with their understanding of the bible or other teachings of their faith; but I find the bible provides equally valid teachings that would instruct the faithful to follow their own faith but to not judge the faith of others, and to respect the rules of the society that protects their right to practice their faith.

So the physics of Christian groups does not constitute a valid equation of faith. It doesn’t provide a moral answer to the problem at hand. The force they are complaining about is one of their own creation. They are choosing to see their beliefs as preeminent to others, to society and to the laws that have protected the freedom of religion successfully for generations. The moral teachings and examples being set by these religious groups are not consistent with the a faith of charity toward others, a faith of loving thy fellow man/woman, or a faith of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.