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 Craig
Mitchell, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Ethics,
Chair of the Ethics
Department
Associate Director of the Richard Land Center for Cultural
Engagement
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Greetings.
[PDFile]
I come before you today to express my concerns not as a religious
leader, but as an American.
My father served for twenty years in the United States Air Force. My
step father served for
twenty years in the United States Air Force also. I served for twelve
years as a USAF officer, and
attained the rank of major in the reserves. I swore my brother in when
he became an active duty
second lieutenant. So with all of this, I have a very strong view of
what it means to be an
American. I do not object to this mandate upon health care only because
it is not consistent with
my faith. No, I object to this mandate because it is not good for
America.
To be an American means that we stand for the constitution of the
U.S. The more that we find
out about this health care bill, the more that we find our constitution
has been violated. I and
many others swore to defend this constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. Yet our
elected officials have created this health care nightmare that requires
every citizen to buy
medical insurance, whether they want it or not. It is as if the commerce
clause did not even exist.
To be an American means that we stand for religious freedom. This
mandate is contrary to
everything that I and every other person who wore the uniform stands for
regardless of what their
faith was. This is true of people who had no faith. It is inconceivable
to me and to many others
that such a bald faced attempt to step on the constitution of this great
country was even proposed.
It is for this reason that I travelled to be here today to make my
objections known.
I am a Southern Baptist minister and a professor of Christian ethics.
As such, I know that
Baptists have stood at the forefront of religious liberty. This goes all
the way to Isaac Backus,
Hezekiah Smith and others who pushed for freedom of religion. When
Thomas Jefferson talked
about a wall of separation between church and state, he was opposing
persecution of people for
their beliefs, but that is exactly what this mandate does. This mandate,
in the name of health care,
seems designed to offend those who have religiously informed moral
sensibilities. Simply put,
this mandate forces people to violate their consciences. A government
that will force its citizens
to violate their consciences has stepped over a critical boundary. If
the purpose of government is
to serve its people, then this rule is wrong. The arguments used to
defend this mandate are no
different from the old argument that says "We had to destroy the village
in order to save it."
It is the church that was responsible for the creation of hospitals.
The church was also
responsible for much of the development of healthcare. With this kind of
history, it is ironic that
the religious organizations should have their rights crushed in the name
of health care. If this is allowed to stand then there is nothing that
the U.S. government cannot compel its citizens to do.
Explain to me how all of this is consistent with the American ideal.
On Friday, the president made some changes to the mandate by having
insurance companies pay
for the contraceptives and abortions. As an economist, I know that a tax
liability on either the
buyer or seller of a good will still be felt by the other. Consequently
the requirement for
insurance companies to pay for this mandate will still be paid by their
customers. In other words,
this solution does not in any significant way dodge the religious
liberty problems associated with
this mandate, because those in the religious institutions will still
have to foot at least part of the
bill. As such, my religious freedoms are still being violated. If the
president is allowed to have
his way, I and every other American will have no recourse to address
egregious act.
As an economist, I also know that when the tax incidence is on the
supplier that the cost of the good or service increases. The president's
health care bill was sold with the idea that it would cut costs. We are
finding thus far that it is becoming far more expensive than it was
originally planned to be. This latest wrinkle only adds to the costs. In
effect, it adds insult to injury, especially when you consider that most
religious institutions are self- insured.
In conclusion, this rule is wrong not just for religious
conservatives, it is wrong for all
Americans, because it takes away the freedom of the citizens while
emboldening the federal
government to do whatever it wants. It is wrong because it violates the
constitution. It is wrong
because it violates religious liberty. It is wrong because it forces
people to violate their
consciences. It is wrong because it is more expensive. This ruling is
just plain wrong for
America