Tag Archives: Religious liberty

The Corona Virus and the Constitution

Posted on by

Protest Gatherings – Yes! 

Funeral Gatherings – No!

“Mayor Bill de Blasio lashed out at Hasidic residents of the Williamsburg section in Brooklyn late Tuesday night after personally overseeing the dispersal of a crowd of hundreds of mourners who had gathered for the funeral of a rabbi who died of the coronavirus.” – The New York Times, April 28

Hizzoner dispatched the police Hong-Kong-style to break up the gathering.

“Something absolutely unacceptable happened in Williamsburg tonite: a large funeral gathering in the middle of this pandemic,” the mayor said in one post. “When I heard, I went there myself to ensure the crowd wasdispersed.  And what I saw WILL NOT be tolerated so long as we are fighting the Coronavirus.”

At this point let me be very clear: I fully support lawful, peaceful protests in the wake of the horrible murder of George Floyd.

But any common-sense assessment of local government responses to recent large crowds would have to wonder, “What has happened to all the concern about the spread of the coronavirus, that once led to government clamp-downs on large gatherings, most extremely seen in de Blazio’s actions in New York?” 

Any honest examination of coronavirus statistics (featured prominently in my local newspaper every day) shows that the cases have risen somewhat in recent weeks.  They are no longer declining.

And whatever happened to “Science-driven social policy”?

Just a few days ago, Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves, was literally accusing President Trump of “genocide” for not taking stronger measure to contain Covid-19. Today, he signed the “protests against racism are more important than stopping the spread of Covid-19” letter.  – David Bernstein, “What Happened to the Public Health Emergency?” The Volokh Conspiracy, June 3, 2020

Local governments are in a lose-lose position.  If coronavirus cases and deaths increase, they will have themselves to blame for allowing large crowds to assemble with little protections and precautions.  If the cases and deaths don’t increasebecause of large crowds gathering, their tight and sometimes heavy-handed limits on religious gatherings (which they regard as equal to crowds at sports and entertainment venues) are unnecessary and excessive.

Three principles of Constitutional Law are being mauled today:

  • Viewpoint Neutrality– the First Amendment’s freedom of speech provision forbids the government from giving advantage or disadvantage to any person or group based on the content of what is being expressed.
  • Equality before the Law– the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government from preferring one group or individual above another in the administration of justice.
  • Free Exercise of Religion – While religious gatherings need to submit to neutral laws of general applicability, they must not be placed at a disadvantage compared to others.

Love, Law, Liberty – 3 Essentials During the Coronavirus Crisis

Posted on by

Love, Law, Liberty

3 Essentials During the Coronavirus Crisis

Blog by Donald P. Shoemaker

I suggest that our country’s response to the coronavirus be looked at as a stool with three legs: Love, Law and Liberty.  If balanced and embraced by most, we will overcome.  I gave three points in my last newsletter, which I’ve now made the three legs of the stool:

LOVE: Out of love for our neighbor, the second great commandment Jesus taught, we do what is best for the greater good of society (Mark 12:31).

LAW: Out of respect for authorities (Titus 3:1) and the medical knowledge they gather to the best of their ability, we agree to the prohibitions and adjustments set forth by our local, state and federal governments, so long as they are fair and equitable.

LIBERTY: Recognizing our constitutional rights, we keep a wary eye on any edicts from government that might limit these rights.  We insist on a quick end to limitations of our rights once the crisis has passed.

Unfortunately, the “Liberty” leg is coming up short. Here is a letter in my local newspaper which, I fear, reflects commonly-held thinking:

Yes, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.  It also guarantees freedom of assembly, but that right has been temporarily suspended for the common good. [emphasis mine]

Temporarily suspended?  By what authority?  In World War II the rights of 120,000 Japanese-Americans were “temporarily suspended.”  Where in the Constitution does it say that the rights guaranteed therein are subject to suspension?  Of course the rights are not absolute.  Freedom of religion does not give one the right to sacrifice children or deny minors lifesaving treatments.  Freedom of speech doesn’t include the right to cry “fire” in a crowded theater, to use Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ analogy. **

Agree or disagree with policies, we should all acknowledge that the “free exercise of religion” and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” are being infringed upon.

I wonder what the reactions would be if “freedom of speech or of the press” were infringed upon in a comparable way at the present time. It is not beyond reason that during the present crisis some might call for limits on speech and publications if the speech is contrary to the “ruling orthodoxy.” Just follow curtailment of speech on public campuses to see how this works.

What are some of the more egregious violations of freedom of religion and assembly?

  • California: Pastor Roy McCoy found it necessary to resign as a councilman in Thousand Oaks, California because he decided to offer a Communion Service at his church that fully conformed to limits on cleanliness and distancing.
  • Mississippi: People who attended a drive-in service by sitting in their cars with the windows up were issued $500 tickets. The Department of Justice intervened in favor of the church, arguing the church was being singled out for more restrictive rules.
  • Kentucky: the mayor of Louisville imposed a ban on drive-in services.The church won in court, the judge saying that people were being permitted to sit in their cars for other purposes, so why not church?

Government cannot target religious exercise unless it shows a compelling state interest in restricting that right.  And—very important—the government must use the least restrictive means necessaryto achieve that compelling state interest.  Brad Dacus, President of the Pacific Justice Institute, notes that as time passes the government’s claim for a compelling state interest will decline while a church’s position will get stronger every day.

Local and state governments should make clear that religious gatherings and services are “ESSENTIAL” services.  To put it another way, government is outside its legitimate role to declare in-person religious gatherings “non-essential.” And it certainly is not being “neutral” toward religion. ***

In my 36 years as a pastor in Seal Beach, California I’ve seen first-hand how the presence, ministries and gatherings of a church provide critical spiritual and emotional support to the community in times of crisis.

A handful of unwise pastors have filled their churches with crowds in blatant disrespect for the government.  Their behavior doesn’t cancel the positive role that a church gathering can now play when proper distancing, cleanliness and a limit on attendance are in force.  Offering Holy Communion during Passion Week is a valuable spiritual uplift to those who come and seek it.

Having places of worship closed while “essential” cannabis dispensaries and liquor stores are open is ethical dissonance almost beyond imagination.

* The good governor said, “Science says people should stay away from each other.”  Science says nothing of the sort.  Science tests theories on how the virus spreads.  The order to separate is a judgment made from looking at the current science.  A hypothesis of science is capable of being applied in a number of directions by others, according to their own societal convictions.  In fact, what does “science” say that would lead us to have liquor stores open and churches closed?

**  Oliver Wendell Holmes gave this analogy in 1919 to argue that a defendant’s speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.  Would we agree with him today?

*** The U.S. Supreme Court said religious organizations “contribute to the well-being of the community” and called for the government to have a position of “benevolent neutrality” toward religion (Walz v. Tax Commission, 1970).

Senators Oppose Christian Nominee over his Religious Beliefs

Posted on by

“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” – Article VI of the U.S. Constitution

But the U.S. Constitution did not get in the way of senators who oppose a Christian nominee for political appointment based on his beliefs!

“I understand that Christianity is the majority religion. But there are other people who have different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?” – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Those words were addressed to Russell Vought, President Donald Trump’s pick for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Sanders repeatedly challenged Vought’s beliefs and (therefore) his qualification to serve in public office.

It didn’t matter that Vought responded, “As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect, regardless of their religious beliefs,” and “I believe that as a Christian, that’s how I should treat all individuals…” Actually, these words convey a higher view of the dignity of humans (such dignity being imbedded in the nature and work of God) than the secularist Sanders’ philosophical system would embrace, but that didn’t matter to Sanders, who labeled Vought’s belief that salvation is only through Jesus Christ* as “indefensible…hateful…Islamophobic… an insult” to Muslims everywhere.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union took the wrong position and sided with Sanders, issuing a statement that Vought’s opinion about Muslim theology is a threat to religious freedom.

But defenders of religious liberty should side with Vought instead. What counts is not what he believes about salvation in the hereafter, but how he treats people and would do his job in the here and now.

Thomas Jefferson said, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” (Notes on Virginia, 1782). Jefferson believed that one’s doctrines are beyond the judgment of government: “religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.”

In fact, Jefferson believed that the “wall of separation” between church and state guaranteed freedom to believe as one wills. (see: “Letter to Danbury Baptist Association”, January 1, 1802)

Rather than debating a nominee’s doctrines, Mr. Sanders and other legislators* should defend nominee’s constitutional rights and not make religion a test for political office, regardless of how odious their beliefs appear to be in the eyes of critics.

Nothing is gained in politics or in civil discourse by either airbrushing religious differences or excluding one another from public service over them.

 

* “Salvation only through Jesus Christ” is a core belief of Evangelical Christianity. Secular inclusivism regards this as heresy and insists on generic notions of religion that make no judgments on ultimate issues like salvation.

With regard to this being an “insult” to Muslims, I know of no feeling of insult on the part of the Muslims I interact with in my role as a member of the Long Beach-area clergy. This assumes that both they and I understand the nature of religious pluralism.

* Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) chimed in: “I’m a Christian, but part of being a Christian, in my view, is recognizing that there are lots of ways that people can pursue their God…” The senator should stay in his proper sphere and not pretend to be a theologian.

 

Anti-Muslim Hatred Post-election

Posted on by

The Virginia Legislature that approved “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom” (1786)
“meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”
– Thomas Jefferson

Sadly, several Islamic Centers in California, including one in Long Beach where I live, have received anonymous hate mail in recent days.

Written by a person or persons who claim to be “Americans for a Better Way,” the letter is addressed to Muslims as “the children of Satan.” It calls them “vile and filthy people” whose mothers are whores and fathers are dogs. It asserts a horrible, twisted patriotism that all Americans of good will must reject.

Those who write such hatred care nothing for the Bible or American ideals.

My Website’s Home Page speaks of “How We See God’s Kingdom Today” and has this great quotation:

“The Kingdom of God is no longer identified with any geopolitical kingdom on earth. It is no longer the era of driving the nations out of God’s holy land but of living side by side with unbelievers in charity. It is the hour of grace, not judgment.”
– Michael Horton, The Christian Faith (2012)

We must live by these words and let the Christmas message point us to the reconciling work of Jesus. He will sort out everything justly on The Last Day. Meanwhile we commit ourselves to living at peace with one another as best we can, not taking revenge, loving our enemies, and overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

Donald P. Shoemaker

County Clerk in KY and Same-sex Marriage Licenses

Posted on by

What I’m writing today (Sept. 2) reflects one day of pondering and the situation as I understand it. More pondering or more facts could revise my thoughts.

I’m heavily influenced by Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “No provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man, than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

Government at all levels should strive to accommodate conscience rights as much as possible while still furthering its legitimate purposes.  For example, providing for the national defense is of the highest constitutional order, but conscientious objectors are exempt from service even though that means others many have to serve and put their lives at risk in the stead of the CO’s.  Arguing from the greater to the lesser, this same protection should apply to much more ordinary matters.

“Reasonable accommodation” of religious beliefs in workplace situations is a well-established principle. It is not an absolute, but it is strong.

Only extremists would argue that government should always compel, or that conscience must always prevail.  But I’ll push the meter as much as can justly be done in the direction of freedom of conscience, no matter what the issue.

I don’t know the Kentucky situation well.  Is this one county clerk the only one in the region who can say yes or no?  Are there alternatives, or are the applicants just trying to have a crusade against this one person?  Areas like LA, by contrast, would have many other clerks available, I’m sure.  This is from the Washington Post (Monday, Aug. 31):

“In her defense, her lawyers described Davis in a court filing as ‘a professing Apostolic Christian who attends church worship service multiple times per week, attends weekly Bible study, and leads a weekly Bible study with women at a local jail.’ It says she fasted and prayed for weeks before deciding that she would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

“Her lawyers say there are more than 130 locations around the state where same-sex couples can get licenses, including seven counties neighboring Rowan. They also argue that other steps could be taken to accommodate Davis’s religious beliefs.

“For example, a clerk from a neighboring county could be deputized to issue licenses in Rowan County. The state could remove all references to a clerk’s name on marriage licenses. Or lawmakers could overhaul the way Kentucky licenses marriages.”

In this case, the particular clerk has been able to serve her task without conscience issues until same-sex marriage became a protected right.  So this is a new feature to her role, and I can understand her angst and conflicted conscience.  Imagine a doctor or nurse in the ob-gyn specialty who is dedicated to saving nascent human life and who believes abortion is murder but then is pressured by a hospital to participate in abortion.  Mostly their consciences are protected, but there have been many challenges.  Even clergy, now conscience-protected, have reason for concern.  According to a Barna poll in July, “There is a substantial minority among Americans under 40 (26%) who believe the law should compel religious institutions and clergy members to perform same-sex weddings.”

When same-sex marriage was legalized in California in 2008, the Long Beach Press-Telegram editorialized with this assurance: “Conservative religionists have nothing to fear. Their religious practices and their personal definition of marriage are intact.”  The ink wasn’t even dry on that editorial when Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo demanded that the county registrar not allow employees who are uncomfortable with gay marriages to excuse themselves from officiating at such ceremonies.

The Kentucky clerk has two primary options—resign or fight on.  Both have weighty implications for her and her family. I’ve counseled many an individual over workplace conflicts involving conscience.  Each has to be individually considered.  What is being ordered or forbidden?  Is this a core issue or a peripheral one?  What are the options and recourses, both legal and non-legal?  Is the issue bigger than one individual, to where staying on is needed to fight a larger cause?  Are there alternatives that might achieve a “win/win” (an important question and an appropriate quest in a diverse society—the Washington Post quote above suggests there are)?  Usually I’d recommend resignation, but by no means always.  If this clerk stands fast, she must bear the consequences, though I expect she would receive a lot of support.

Now, here’s a situation that is comparable, I think, but more troubling because of the high government position involved. The California Attorney General takes an oath of office that says (emphases mine):

“I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

Kamala Harris took that oath but then refused to “defend…the Constitution of the State of California” as reported:

SAN FRANCISCO (March 26, 2013) — Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued the following statement on today’s Proposition 8 arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court:

“I declined to defend Proposition 8 because it violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court has described marriage as a fundamental right 14 times since 1888. The time has come for this right to be afforded to every citizen.”

Now, she may be right about what the court says about marriage and the Constitution—five justices seem to agree. But her job isn’t to make that judgment but to defend a provision of the California Constitution in court.  It is a simple syllogism:

  1. Major Premise: The A/G must defend the CA Constitution
  2. Minor Premise: Proposition 8 is part of the CA Constitution
  3. Conclusion: Therefore the A/G must defend Proposition 8

She was reaching for her conclusion before there was one. In citing Supreme Court decisions, she should have looked back to 1878 (Reynolds), when the court ruled against the Mormons and said bigamy was not a right. Following her refusal to defend the state constitution, the court found that the proponents of Prop. 8 lacked standing before the court.

I can be neutral on both cases, but still believe that both the Attorney General and the County Clerk in KY are arguing conscience above law.

From a biblical standpoint, the argued position is that the laws of the state must be honored and obeyed but in a time of conflict the Law of God supersedes the law of the state (Acts 4:19). This principle is exemplified often in the Bible, such as when an order forbidding certain prayers was made during the Persian rule and Daniel, a government official, violated it (Daniel 6:6-10). As a Christian, my confession, “Jesus Christ is Lord!” is not subject to compartmentalization and cannot be confined to some sacred space surrounded by stained glass windows.

If I had to advise at this moment, I’m not sure what I would say though I might lean toward advising resignation. Frankly, I predict she will continue to lose any legal action she takes. However, if she and her counsel see the presence of larger issues, I’d allow that she should remain and take the consequences. I’m disappointed that efforts at accommodation are not going forward because it appears that other options do exist, and accommodation is consistent with a free society. Sadly and with regret, I find that in matters like this, many activists are practicing a “take no prisoners” modus operandi.

Donald Shoemaker

September 2, 2015

Religious Liberty Challenge: “Houston, We Have a Problem!”

Posted on by

“No provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man, than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” – Thomas Jefferson

Quenching Religious Expression in the Name of Equality

Whichever side one is on as to the “transgender” issue, what happened in October in Houston, Texas should concern all who support religious liberty.

Long story short, a petition was submitted to the city to call for a voter referendum that would repeal a recent amendment to the city’s equal rights ordinance. The amendment allowed “transgendered” people access to the rest room of their “gender identity”. When the referendum petition was rejected, several groups filed a lawsuit against Houston.

In response to this, attorneys for the city subpoenaed a large number of documents from five pastors—“all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to [the equal rights ordinance], the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

The results of this great overreach of government power would be at least two: (1) an intimidating, chilling effect on the messages and legal activism of churches, and (2) much difficulty for churches to fulfill the subpoenas—churches are generally unequipped or staffed for this kind of demand.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State said that, while a subpoena would be in order when there is a reasonable suspicion of wrong, such wrongdoing is not an issue in this case. “The targeted pastors are not even parties to the lawsuit, and the scope of the subpoenas is striking broad. This has the look of a fishing expedition.” The ACLU of Texas agreed: “The government should never engage in fishing expeditions into the inner workings of a church, and any request for information must be carefully tailored to seek only what is relevant to the dispute.” The Interfaith Alliance said, “As long as a sermon is not inciting violence, the government has no business getting involved in the content of ministers’ sermons.”

That’s three left-wing voices supporting religious liberty in this case!

For now, the city has backed down (rather unrepentantly) from its power display—first by narrowing the request and then by dropping it altogether. Nonetheless, keep alert because “Vigilance is always the Price of Liberty.”

[Sources: “Friendly Atheist” blog; Websites of Americans United and the ACLU;
“The Volokh Conspiracy”, October 16 and 29, 2014; Houston Chronicle, October 29]

Religious Liberty and Contraception under “Obamacare”

Posted on by

Religious Liberty and Contraception under “Obamacare”
By Donald P. Shoemaker
Pastor Emeritus,
Grace Community Church of Seal Beach
Chair, Social Concerns Committee,
Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches

A couple’s personal, private decisions on contraception should be just that—personal and private.

If they belong to a religious community, they need to consider that religion’s teachings, at least if they seriously claim to be part of that faith community.

This couple would likely not want the government to have any directive in this matter. And in decades past most would not have expected the government (taxpayers) to pay for their contraception decision, or force others like religious colleges to pay for what they decide.

Fast-forward to “Obamacare” and contraception is now being treated as if it is a sacrament, a “Secular Eucharist” dispensed freely by government grace.

The administration’s original highhandedness (the statement by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on January 20, 2012) that would have run roughshod over religious scruples has morphed a lot, but there are still issues. At one end, the government would exempt “houses of worship”—a slender concession. At the other end, debates and court decisions mushroom over the mandate to secular businesses owned by people with religion-based objections to contraception—people trying to lead their businesses in the light of their values. In the middle are religion-based institutions other than churches—schools, hospitals, social agencies, etc.

That these institutions, absent a compelling state interest, should be able to implement policies reflecting their core moral values is, to me, a clear right. Enter Americans United for Separation of Church and State. One would think by its title this group would not want the government to boss the affairs of religious organizations, thereby breaching “the wall of separation”. But no, AU is seeking to intervene in behalf of students at the University of Notre Dame to ensure that their health plan gives access to contraceptives.

AU asserts, “Even if the University’s religious exercise were substantially burdened by the challenged regulations, there is a compelling interest for the imposition of that burden, namely, providing the affected women with access to contraception and the consequent control over their sexual lives, bodily integrity, and reproductive capacity.” Be sure to think through this statement carefully!! If the government has a “compelling interest” for burdening religious groups so as to grant women “control over their sex lives, bodily integrity and reproductive capacity”, that would include a duty to pay for ABORTION.

The key words here are “substantially burdened” and “compelling interest for the imposition of that burden.” This argument would override religious protection provided by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).

I find it interesting and frustrating that AU argued quite differently in 2002 when it opposed Catholic Charities (Catholic Charities of Sacramento vs. Superior Court) in a similar case about insurance coverage of contraceptives. AU argued then that the 1999 California statute requiring contraceptive coverage “should not be deemed to impose a ‘substantial burden’ on the exercise of religion because CC can opt to pay a stipend for contraceptive coverage rather than purchasing the coverage itself and can still issue statements and disclaimers against the use of contraception.” CC could also comply with the law by simply not offering prescription drug coverage at all, the California Supreme Court said! Not a good thought!

I’ll let legal experts debate Obamacare’s contraception mandate. I’ll continue to pray and work for a libertarian understanding of religious freedom.

I conclude here with, first, the observation that AU’s defense of separation of church and state is very often a veneer for the pursuit of its own liberal agenda. Second, AU has trotted out a letter signed by 1000 clergy that demands equal access to contraception. At the end of its blog labeling these signers “conscientious clergy” AU says, “This is not a theocracy, no matter what the Religious Right and its allies say.”

Come now! It is not theocratic to let a religious institution define and live out its own creed and mission.

Roe v. Wade at 40

Posted on by

Roe v. Wade at 40
By Donald P. Shoemaker
[published with slight edits in the Los Alamitos-Seal Beach Patch, Jan. 22, 2013]

“You created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13). For this scripture and other reasons I joined the “Right to Life” movement on January 22, 1973, the day “Roe v. Wade” was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. As Roe v. Wade reaches its 40-year mark, I want to make three observations about this landmark decision.

First, the court’s Roe v. Wade decision was far more expansive than necessary to decide the case before it. It gave unlimited right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy and allowed limits during the second trimester only as were “reasonably related to maternal health”. For the third trimester, the court noted “the potentiality of human life” (the unborn) and said states could regulate or ban abortion at this stage except if maternal “health” (broadly understood) was at risk.

Roe v. Wade grounded abortion rights on a right to privacy that it found in the “penumbra” (we might say, “surrounding glow”) of the Constitution rather than in the words of the Constitution itself.

Thus the court “legislated” (made law) rather than “judged” law. Justice Rehnquist in dissent reminded the court it should never “formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied” (www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZD.html).

Second, public opinion has never been in accord with Roe v. Wade and is even less so now than in 1973. It also should fairly be said that public opinion doesn’t support the “Right to Life” side in all details either. Here are some samples of recent Gallup opinion polls (www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx).

• Today 50% say they are “pro-life” compared to 33% in 1996. In 1996, 56% claimed to be “pro-choice” and today that number is 41%.
• 71% support requiring parental notification if the woman is under 18.
• 62% support legal abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, but 71% oppose it during second three months and 86% in the last three months.
• Still, 52% do not want to see the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.

If we survey all the questions in the polls, we see most Americans are against most abortions and do not favor either an outright ban on abortions nor unqualified access to abortions.

Third, a new wrinkle has been added by the “contraception mandate” in what is popularly called “Obamacare”. Now the issue of religious liberty (the “free exercise” of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment) has been raised. In other words, the debate moves from what people should be free to do to what people and institutions with religion-based convictions can be forced to do.

“Obamacare” provides a very narrow and inadequate exemption for “houses of worship” but plans to force religious institutions (such as Christian colleges) to cover free access to contraception including, as feared by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “drugs which can attack a developing unborn child before and after implantation in the mother’s womb” (www.usccb.org/news/2011/11-154.cfm). This major debate will certainly go to the Supreme Court.

The current administration is no friend of religious liberty in my opinion. Ironically, President Obama’s 2013 “Religious Freedom Day” proclamation said, “As we observe [on January 16] Religious Freedom Day…let us honor it by forever upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution” (www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/16/presidential-proclamation-religious-freedom-day).

Yes, Mr. President, let’s do that even if exercising religious liberty conflicts with your plans for expansive government control in matters previously thought to be better left to the consciences of individuals and the convictions of religious institutions.

Donald P. Shoemaker is Pastor Emeritus of Grace Community Church of Seal Beach. In 1980 he served as General Chairman of the National Right to Life Convention at the Anaheim Convention Center.