Opinion: 'Separation of Church and State' Flows One Way? Obamacare Preached in Churches

By Jennifer Hartline
9/27/2010
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

We heard nary a peep from the strict separationists

Well, what do you know, there's a door in that "wall" of separation of church and state. Last Tuesday, it seems it was politically expedient to open it and enlist some new foot soldiers in the President's battle to sell Obamacare to the public.We heard nary a peep from the "Separation of Church and State" police.

They want to require that we keep religion out of politics, but when they deem it necessary, politics must be waged in church. Don't bother listening for the outcry from the 'Separation' congregation. There won't be any.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) -- Well, what do you know.there's a door in that "wall" of separation of church and state. Last Tuesday, it seems it was politically expedient to open it and enlist some new foot soldiers in the President's battle to sell Obamacare to the public. In a conference call, Obama asked thousands of religious leaders to help him spread the word about the benefits of the Affordable Care Act (the new healthcare law).

We heard nary a peep from the "Separation of Church and State" police.

Politico reported: "Obama instructed faith leaders to treat the new law as settled fact and use their perches of power to convey that message to congregants and friends.

"The debate in Washington is over, the Affordable Care Act is now law ... I think all of you can be really important validators and trusted resources for friends and neighbors, to help explain what's now available to them," he said.

Joshua DuBois, director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Partnerships, gave activists a rallying cry: "Get the word out there, get information out there. Make use of the resources we've described on this call: the website, door hangers, one pagers and so forth. We've got work to do."

The Obama administration feels quite free to use church leaders and religious communities to "get the word out" about an extremely controversial health care law that most Americans don't like and don't want; a law that is already having the effect of raising insurance premiums and prescription costs.

Citizen Link explains, "One day after health care's six-month anniversary, Obama's promise of, "If you like your policy, you can keep your policy," sounded hollow to Minnesotans when they learned that two state-based health insurers, HealthPartners and Blue Cross and Blue Shield, temporarily suspended individual health insurance policies.

The reason: the uncertainty surrounding new federal regulations and compliance provisions that went into effect Wednesday. The suspension does not affect existing customers.
Unfortunately, millions of seniors on Medicare are also finding out the hard way that they can't keep their policy.

The American Association of Retired People (AARP) announced that next week it will shut down its prescription drug plan, MedicareRX Preferred. AARP, an active promoter of Obamacare, attracted 1.5 million seniors into its plan with its lower costs. Now, these seniors will see prescription prices jump 15 percent or more, as they are forced into a higher plan."

Several insurers around the country had mailed letters to their enrollees explaining that new increases in premiums were a result of Obamacare - at least until Kathleen Sebelius, head of Health and Human Resources wrote to the American's Health Insurance Plans association demanding that insurers stop saying that.

Regarding the cost of Obamacare, Sebelius wrote: "According to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal. We estimate that that the effect will be no more than one to two percent."

We all know how accurate those government analyses are, and how on-target all those industry experts are. I'm glad she "estimates" the cost will only rise one to two percent. Potentially. (Really? They really think the premium impact is only "potential?")

Sebelius goes on in her letter to enumerate all the new requirements that insurers must meet (without much cost increase at all, mind you):

"All plans must comply with provisions such as no lifetime limits, no rescissions except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact, and coverage of most adult children up to age 26. New plans must comply with additional provisions, such as coverage of preventive services with no cost sharing, access to OB / GYNs without referrals, restrictions on annual limits on coverage, a prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions of children (which applies to all group health plans), access to out-of-network emergency room services."

To many Americans, it just doesn't seem realistic, even possible, to accomplish all this with such a "minimal" cost increase, and the assurances of all the Obamacare experts simply don't persuade.

Sebelius sums up her scolding of AHIP by insisting that those who disagree with her experts are giving "misinformation" and such misinformation will not be tolerated.

On September 21st, The LA Times reported that as of Thursday the 23rd, Aetna and Anthem Blue Cross, two major insurance carriers, would no longer offer policies for children, citing potentially huge and unexpected costs due to Obamacare, a provision of which requires that all children be covered to age 19 regardless of health history. UnitedHealthGroup Inc. is also expected to stop selling policies exclusively for children.

Clearly, the Obama administration is having difficulty generating enthusiasm about their healthcare law. The upcoming election promises to be critically important and probably game-changing. That means it's now okay to violate the otherwise inviolate law of separation of church and state and urge church leaders to preach the virtues of Obamacare from the pulpit. If the President can't convince the American people of the greatness of his plan, then pastors must do it for him.

They want to require that we keep religion out of politics, but when they deem it necessary, politics must be waged in church. Don't bother listening for the outcry from the "Separation" congregation. There won't be any.

-----

Jennifer Hartline is a grateful Catholic, a proud Army wife and mother of four precious children (one in Heaven). She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online.

- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: sepatation of church and state, obamacare, abortion, healthcare

NEWSLETTERS »

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 50 Comments

Pete Brady
2 years ago
Doug Indeap: Sorry, I've been otherwise occupied these past few days. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this. At best, we are trying to give others our point of view in the hope that it may help them, if undecided, to go one way or the other. If I am discounting Madison's role it is because too much is probably made of it to the discredit and undue exclusion of those others present at the Constitutional Convention. For example, George Bancroft in his 1886 work, "A Plea for the Constitution of the United States Wounded in the House of it Guardians," stated that Roger Sherman, George Washington, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were the "master-builders of the Constitution.' Again, Madison just one among many. James Monroe thought that without Washington's leadership role the Convention would have failed. It is much more likely that Madison has subsequently been given more credit because of his further political positions in government, including his presidency; as well as his hand along with Jay and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. I think that your assertion that my statement of the role of Christianity in law and government as being "plainly false" can be seen as just YOUR OPINION. I cannot see in the following quotes where the Founders thought that our government rested merely on "the people" and not God. "Religion and virtue are the only foundations... of republicanism and of all free governments." - John Adams // "Government... is a firm compact sanctified from violation by all the ties of personal honor, morality, and religion." - Fisher Ames, author of the House language on the First Amendment // Religion and morality... are necessary to good government, good order, and good laws." - William Paterson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court justice // "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. " - Noah Webster. // "The sanctions of religion compose the foundations of good government" - Dewitt Clinton, introduced the 12th amendment, Governor of New York, U.S. Senator // "I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am perfectly satisfied that the Union of the States in its form and adoption is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament." - Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration // "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue, tend to support and establishment of both." - John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration // "The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God." - James Otis, as an attorney argued against the British "Writs of Assistance" before the Revolutionary War // "The only true basis of all government [is] the laws of God and nature. For government is an ordinance of Heaven, designed by the all benevolent Creator." - Samuel Adams // "Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement... the very existence of the republics... depend upon the public institutions of religion." - John Hancock // "[A] free government... can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed... by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality." - Abraham Baldwin, signer of the Constitution // "The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability, a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; - these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is indeed difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them." - Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court justice, and Father of American Jurisprudence // Not one shred of support for "secular" can be found in those quotes. These quotes are but the tip of an iceberg of historical evidence that runs to a "given" that the Founders were religious, Christian, and desirous of imbuing their government with Christianity and recognizing God as at the root of all they sought for themselves and their posterity in that government. The lack of reference to God or Christianity in the Constitution does not mean that it isn't its most firm support. To argue the contrary is to say that because the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible that the Holy Trinity does not exists or that it isn't a dogma of Catholic faith.
ttc
2 years ago
I believe in the separation of church and government since it was stated by Jesus Himself" give what is due to Ceasar's and give what is due to God". However, I believe too that the authority of God is over and above the authority of government since we know God is the Creator and we are His creation.
Using the church to spread the unrighteous agenda is a desperate act. God hates the evil ways and hates the tolerance of evil ways.
I am invitating everyone that we all pray for the goodness and bettement of America. Vote for candidate who are God fearing. God bless our country.
Doug Indeap
2 years ago
Pete,
You are, of course, right to note that Madison was but one of many who drafted the Constitution and later the First Amendment, but you overly discount his role. He was widely recognized--then and since--to play what I characterize as a central role in the drafting of both. He modestly and correctly admonished those crediting him with writing the Constitution that he did not do it alone and it was not the offspring of a single brain. That said, if one were to point to one person with the greatest hand in the drafting of these documents, Madison assuredly would be that one. Moreover, while Madison did not see a need for a Bill of Rights, as you note, that does not diminish the fact that he was chosen by Congress to serve on the drafting committee and he largely led that effort. Of all the founders, thus, Madison was in perhaps the best position to know and explain what they had in mind. With respect to Madison's actions as President, note that he vetoed two bills-- neither of which would have formed a national church--on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. In his Detached Memoranda, he did express regrets about his religious proclamations and about Congress' appointment of chaplains, apologetically chalked them up to political expediency, and suggested that they be regarded as mistakes and not as legitimate precedent for future actions. With respect to the Treaty of Tripoli, you pose a dilemma ("Were they hypocrites?") predicated on the "given" that "the Founders (save Thomas Paine) were as one in stating that Christianity was part and parcel of the law and government of the United States." That is hardly given; indeed, it is plainly false in at least one critical respect. Given the republican nature of our government, it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government--in both the founders' time and today--largely reflect Christianity's dominant influence in our society. That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion. As I noted earlier, in assessing the nature of our government, the religiosity of the various founders, while informative, is largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office.
Bulbajer
2 years ago
Vance, if you know the particular amendment in question (your first sentence, about transvestites and Catholic schools), could you please cite it? I searched the document for 15 minutes before I gave up. Homosexuals are indeed now a protected status under the law, and that is a good thing. In this country and around the globe there are many, many crimes committed against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. And there is a also a cultural bias against them (and not all of it, in fact barely any of it, stems from religious beliefs). Would you not consider it unjust to refuse to hire someone on the basis that they are homosexual? And as far as I know, it is not against the law for a priest to say that homosexuality is an abomination. There may have been one or two highlighted cases, but if you know of a specific law, please, cite it for us. "Millions of dead babies from abortion, 3/4 of Black Babies are born to single mothers, the poverty rate is at a 40 year high, drugs are more ramped than ever, many Terri Schiavo's are euthanized that are not on national TV, Black and Hispanic communties are religated to permament underclass societies, Education achievement scores continue to be dismal, high school dropout rates continue to run high among Blacks and Hispanics eventhough Liberals have had full control for the last 50 years." All of this is true, but not all of it has to due with liberals. The poverty rate is a result of the recession, which in turn was a result of the U.S.'s debt (which steadily increased not only under Obama, but under Bush before him), the mistakes of big business (in particular mortgage and housing companies/firms), and the failure of our government to notice until it was too late. Black and Hispanic communities have never done so well economically, although it is a myth that the Democratic Party is a champion of racial minorities. What is my point in saying all this? Basically I object to the notion that liberalism is evil. Liberalism is, like every political movement, full of fallacies and dark sides. Abortion is probably the most evident example. I'm not arguing that liberalism is perfect, or even close.
Pete Brady
2 years ago
Doug Indeap: Madison is kinda difficult to figure out. We do have his "Detached Memoranda." Do we go with what he said there or what else he said and did? In a November 9, 1772 letter to William Bradford, he said, "a watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven." And again in a September 25, 1773 to the same William Bradford, he says, "I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way." To which opinions he would publicly confirm as a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights, declaring, "(i)t is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other." Madison served on the 1789 Congressional committee that authorized, approved, and selected chaplains in "paid" service for Congress. And then, probably more so than other Presidents before him, he issued throughout his Presidency of 1809-1816 numerous proclamations of public and "official" days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Did he have regrets after his presidency? Dunno. Was he being "political" early on, and felt that he could be seen as the "elder statesman" after his term in office like so many of our current former presidents? Dunno. I think it's going to take more than just a single chapter in Madison's life to color him with true animus to religion in the public sphere or, rather, whether he was not just raising "questions" that he thought needed to be clarified. And is that not, perhaps, our task by looking at the overall picture, with a particular view to the "original intent?"
Pete Brady
2 years ago
Doug Indeap: Let me now tackle the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli from which you correctly quote, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." But let us also continue the quote and see if there is any more "sense" to be made of it --- "... not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said [United] States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Given that it can be established that the Founders (save Thomas Paine) were virtually as one in stating that Christianity was part and parcel of the law and government of these United States, why would they begin the Treaty of Tripoli by stating that the country was "not founded on the Christian religion." Were they hypocrites? Were they religious schizophrenics? Are we compelled to admit that despite all other prolific evidence to the contrary that the Founders chose here in a treaty whose purpose was the cessation of hostilities to repudiate in such a strikingly divorced manner their common "Christian religion?" THAT does not make sense. In order for that to be their purpose it would have had to been necessary for it to have been repeated elsewhere and with frequency. It was not. So why begin a treaty with "not founded on the Christian religion?" The answer is as simple as the 'Atlantic Ocean.' America wanted nothing whatsoever to do with European conflicts. We have only to go to Washington's "Farewell Address" to establish this: "Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. --- Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.... // Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. // Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? --- Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? --- Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?" The Founders knew history. They knew the "causes" behind Europe's conflicts. They knew of the "Holy Roman Emperor." They knew of the "divine right" of Europe's monarchs. America was "imbued" with the guiding light of Christianity. Europe's royal governments on the other hand had a long history of close identification with ecclesiastical purposes. America was to be Christian, not ecclesiastical. Since this was viewed as the "cause" of the conflict between Christian Europe and the Islamic world, the Founders intended to say 'we're not Europe," America does not hold up a Christian patriarchal monarch in any sense to be in conflict with any Islamic potentate. If anything, the wording of the Treaty of Tripoli bears out the "federal" nature of America's constitutional government. There was no "state" religion. Religion was a matter for the individual constituent states that made up the Union. Religion projected inwardly not outwardly. The statement does make sense. America was "not founded on the Christian religion." An "ecclesiastical" connection could not be found within the workings of our government. The guiding light of Christianity, however, could.
Bulbajer
2 years ago
Vance, I am no legal expert (or Biblical for that matter), but I'm not sure whether or not the Sixth and Seventh Amendments have grounds in the Bible. They're compatable, of course, but I'm pretty sure doen't mention anything like them. I also think that any equivalent of the Fifth Amendment only makes an appearance in the New Testament, but again, I'm not sure.
Bulbajer
2 years ago
Andrew, sadly no.
vance
2 years ago
Bulbajer, The Hate Speech legislation was an amendment to the Obamacare. Catholic Schools are MANDATED to hire transvestites as teachers if one should apply for a position. Homosexuals have become a PROTECTED class under this amendment. It is against the law for a priest to state that homosexuality is disordered. Hopefully Obamacare will be over turned. My whole point is that Liberalism is a lie and a false promise. It has been and continues to be the rot of western civilization. I am an old 'Baby Boomer' and I have heard and seen it all. All anyone needs to do is look at the results of liberalism. Liberalism crows that it is for the 'Little Guy', for 'Women's Rights', 'For Minorities', For 'Education', and on and on. Just look across the landscape and what do you see? Millions of dead babies from abortion, 3/4 of Black Babies are born to single mothers, the poverty rate is at a 40 year high, drugs are more ramped than ever, many Terri Schiavo's are euthanized that are not on national TV, Black and Hispanic communties are religated to permament underclass societies, Education achievement scores continue to be dismal, high school dropout rates continue to run high among Blacks and Hispanics eventhough Liberals have had full control for the last 50 years. Let's not forget the broken people and broken homes. This is the trophy of Liberalism. The sad reality is that the hard core liberals are Kool-Aid drinking sociopaths. They see the fallout from what they supported but lay the blame on some anonymous figure over the horizan. "IT's Bush's Fault". "It's the Catholic Church's Fault" and on and on. But they will not look at themselves in the mirror and admit that they made wrong choices. "I can't vote for a Republican. My father and grandfather before me were "By God Democrats". This is not about being Democrat or Republican. It is about what is happening to our society. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are not finished yet. Wait until the lame duck session. You will see Liberalism at its worse than what we have already wittnessed.
Miss Marie
2 years ago
In my humble opinion, specific government policy is not an appropriate topic for the pulpit, nor is individual candidate endorsement. I do support the message of individuals using their Christian values and morals when determining whether or not the candidates or policies being offered are consistent with their beliefs, but believe the specific discussions and debates and any call to action for or against policies are better suited for after-mass programs and individual ministries. Additionally, whether or not we agree with the passage of the Health Care bill, it happened and, unless it is successfully repealed, it is a program that will affect every citizen in this country. I would support the churches offering information programs for their congregations. It is a very intricate and complicated bill. The only issue at hand is whether or not an impartial source is available to state the facts and details, because, as this post attests, there is still an awful lot of division about the merits of the bill itself.

Prev12 3 4 5 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment