Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State
Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom
of Conscience?
US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (16 February, 2012)
Testimony of
The Most Reverend William E. Lori
Roman Catholic Bishop of Bridgeport, CT
Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
[PDF
File]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for
the
opportunity to testify today.
For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let's call it,
"The Parable of the Kosher Deli."
Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that
serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls
attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but
kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.
The Orthodox Jewish community-whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides-expresses its outrage at the
new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem
eating pork-not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all
faiths-because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They
recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know
that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced-under threat of
severe government sanction-to violate their most deeply held beliefs,
especially their unpopular beliefs.
Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, "But pork is good for
you. It is, after all, the other white meat." Other supporters add, "So
many Jews eat pork, and those who don't should just get with the times." Still
others say, "Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone
else." But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate,
because people widely recognize the following.
First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for
you, that's not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead,
the mandate generates the question whether people who believe-even if they believe
in error-that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to
serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious
liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply
irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not-and they do not out of their most
deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in
society-even large majorities within the protesting religious community-reject a
particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on
one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that
minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and
diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on
others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government
mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is
good on objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the
freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no
government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous
and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers.
Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so
eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away
for free.
In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher
deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe
government sanction on the deli? In a nation committed to religious liberty and
diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the
day.
In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand
the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new "accommodation."
You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham
sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand
it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat
supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and
serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill
from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the "free" ham
sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that
bill.
Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact
that ham sandwiches didn't need to be on the menu, and didn't need to be
prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three
troubling things. First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham
sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis' meat suppliers, themselves, are
forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third,
there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to
offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.
This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is
absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that
it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive
power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when
the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few
doors down. The question before the United States government-right now-is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that
are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation
continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We
urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest
possible terms, to answer the same way.
Thank you for your attention.