Wash Post Journalist: 'Maybe the Founders Were Wrong' to Guarantee Free Exercise of Religion
By Scott Whitlock | February 08, 2012 | 19:15
Washington Post political writer Melinda Henneberger shockingly stated, Wednesday, that "maybe the Founders were wrong" to guarantee religious liberty. Henneberger appeared on Hardball to discuss the Obama administration's decision to force the Catholic Church to provide birth control in health care.
Discussing the battle between the left and those who see it as a threat to the First Amendment, she declared, " Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment but that is what they did and I don't think we have to choose here. " Henneberger's awkward comment came as she attempted to defend the Catholic Church. [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
Host Chris Matthews speculated about the Catholic Church capitulating: "Can you imagine them saying we give up? We're going to provide full insurance coverage with no co-pay for everything now defined by the FDA as birth control...They're going to go for this?"
Henneberger shot back, "That will never happen."
She added, "...What [the Obama administration is] doing is guaranteeing people, you know, these Catholic outfits and others can't serve the populations that they were called to serve. But, it does not have to come to that."
Henneberger's larger point was defensive of the Catholic Church and of religious liberty. However, her comment on the First Amendment was poorly phrased.
A transcript of the February 8 segment, which aired at 5:20pm EST, follows:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: There you have the ideological argument from the left, I suppose, the progressives in this country. You heard it well-spoken there, I believe, Melinda, they see it as an argument over whether you're allowed to have birth control or getting covered as part of the insurance or not. The Catholic Church and those who are looking at the interests of the, well, the First Amendment if you will, as they see it look at it differently. Explain this distinction and how you look at the interests involved, the conflicts, the rights involved here.
MELINDA HENNEBERGER (Washington Post): I just think the two sides can't hear each other, not that there is anything unusual about that. But I know in my own conversations with friends, I'm saying, "First Amendment, First Amendment, First Amendment." And what I hear back is, "Wow. I had no idea you, you didn't believe in birth control." You know, this really is seen widely among Catholics and people of other faiths as an attack on religious liberty. Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment, but that is what they did and I don't think we have to choose here. The key is that I think there are ways we can go about this where, without infringing on any concern about a woman's health, we can still guarantee religious liberty without which, I mean, there is no way this is going to stand in the court but it's also a huge political liability.
MATTHEWS: Okay. You say there is no way it's going to stand in the court. Let's assume there is no legislation that gets signed by the President. Let's assume it stands between this who's going to blink thing. Let's ask, will the Catholic Church, let's ask, blink? Can you imagine them saying we give up. We're going to provide full insurance coverage with no co-pay for everything now defined by the FDA as birth control. They're going to do it. They're going to go for this?
HENNEBERGER: That actually can never happen so they would have to literally go- I mean, what Sister Carol Keehan is saying who runs the Catholic Health association, do I really have to choose between the call that I think came from Jesus to serve the have nots in this world and the government telling me that I have to do something that goes against my faith? I mean, this really- that will never happen so what they're doing is guaranteeing people, you know, these Catholic outfits and others can't serve the populations that they were called to serve. But, it does not have to come to that.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Even if poorly phrased, it was what was in her mind.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 8:23pm.
They are all too eager to chuck the constitution in the trash because it is so inconvenient to their agenda. They are also too eager to forget the history behind the constitution and why its provisions exist.
Liberals would love to see their agenda, including such atrocities as hate speech, elimination of the right to bear arms and the elimination of the electoral college into a new constitution. Problem is, they could not muster the 2/3rds majority needed in both houses and 3/4ths of the states to ratify the amendment. As I discussed on another post, they also would not want a constitutional convention because it would, in all likelihood, express the fury and anger of the states against unfunded federal mandates and kick the current government structure square in the teeth with a reorganization allowing states to veto federal actions. I would have to say I would love seeing Nancy Pelosi screaming that a constitutional convention, ratified by 3/4ths of the states and immune from congressional interference, denied her another term in congress and banned her from holding public office entirely when term limits were imposed.
What a complete moron
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 8:24pm.
They pay these cretins?
This dimwit would willingly walk off a cliff for this libtard nonsense. Why do libtards always think they'er so much smarter then everyone else. Most of these morons has jacks worth of education in any subject on witch they speak. Combine that with stupidity and ideology and you got to know we are on hard times.
Let's, let's,let's
Submitted by bobsmom on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 8:34pm.
geez Chris, let's just all spank your ass and call you Charlie. All kidding aside folks, how do we expect folks who despise religion, to understand religion? And that has been their point. We all know the whole "religion is the opiate of the masses" BS, and I do just see this as the another step of the "religion haters" to crush religion, because to them, "government" is religion. We've been complacent, but I also think this regime has kind of been lulled into a false sense of security because they HAVE gotten away with so much of this BS. Gotta tell ya Odumbo, pi$$in' of a bunch of Catholics is going down in your (hopefully) short history as your shark jumping moment, as well as the moment millions of scales fell from millions of eyes. And to go even further afield here, who are some of the most devoutly religious Catholics? Ding, ding, ding, the Hispanics. A whole lotta stupid going on here.
That girls sounds a bit drunk
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:22pm.
That girls sounds a bit drunk to me.
Perhaps the Founders were wrong
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:25pm.
in guaranteeing Freedom of the Press as well?
It is guaranteed as an Inalienable RIGHT per the Declaration of Independence, not 'granted' by the Constitution or changeable by the federal government without the CONSENT of the Governed.
I do not foresee any difficulty in "registering" and "Licensing" talking heads though.
"Newscasters and REPORTERS would be licensed to REPORT the news with as little 'personal agenda' injected as possible. Violations would require immediate and permanent forfeiture of the license to "report the news" in any capacity.
Commentators would be allowed to comment freely as long as the content was CLEARLY LABELED as the personal opinion of the speaker.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
Get OUR representatives out of the sewer! http://gjresult.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1379
this proves there was no
Submitted by TruthMonger on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:37pm.
this proves there was no intention to separate religion from the government because freedom of religion is garanteed by the constitution
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
⇒ Just tonight on Oreilly
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:41pm.
There wasn this Roman-Collared woman in SEIU colors, telling Bill O churches should support the President. Bill O kept trying to get her on the Constitutional issue, but she sounded like she was only interested in pleasing her lord and master, Obama.
religous Liberty and Obama-care
Submitted by Steve Cakouros on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:53pm.
I am a Presbyterian minister and not accustomed to coming to the defense of the Catholic Church but I will this time.
Thomas Jefferson said that you could believe whatever you want provided you do not pick his pocket. By forcing Catholic hospitals to pay for birth control services which is what Obama-care demands of these institutions, the White House is trying to pick the pocket of the Catholic Church.
Metaphysics is not the driving force behind this naked attempt to bully Catholics. This is an effort to impose the outlook of bureaucrats on those who for conscience sake think differently. How dare they think differently!
There is no stopping Socialists once they get on a roll. Obama-care, which was pushed thru both houses by employing a trick previously employed by Bush 43 in order to cut taxes, is just the tip of the iceberg. Socialized medicine is a game changer.
Future legislators will enlarge upon the Obama-care victory making demands on churches other than the Catholic Church. People of conscience must unite. We have an autocrat in the White House who will if we let him, tie this in with what the churches can or cannot say when disparaging abortion and homosexuality.
I hope that this controversy will prove to be Obama’s Achilles heel. A man so opinionated willful and hubristic does not deserve to be in the White House. Unless his advisors get him to change course they are idiots.
well put
Submitted by dmacleo on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:54am.
this whole thing is a powder keg waiting to explode into a second revolution.
Religion is always one of the first things.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 1:25pm.
communists (pick your flavor) eliminate in order to subjugate the people.
Someone needs to take a
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 10:15pm.
Someone needs to take a ginormous clue bat to these ignorant people and educate/re-educate them on why the Pilgrims came here in the first place. Freedom of religious expression is the foundation of the colonization of America along with the institution of free markets. Obama is behaving like Elizabeth, Queen of England who mandated punishments for not obeying the State's chosen religion.
Early colonies NOT founded on ideals of religious freedom.
Submitted by ThePickle on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 11:16pm.
The move to the new world was NOT driven by the belief in freedom of religious expression. It was driven by the desire to be free of a State imposed religion with which those early settlers disagreed.
The actions of many of the the so-called champions of Religious freedom give lie to the idea that they believed that a governing body should NOT be able to tell the average man who and how to worship. What they in fact believed was that no governing body should be able to tell THEM who and how to worship.
A quick search of available historic accounts show that these early settlers were just as intolerant of religions other than there own as was the the English Anglican Church, the very Church they fled to be free of religious persecution.
While the basic principles of religious freedom were written into the Constitution it was less a guarantee of religious freedom and more a prohibition against the Federal Government being empowered to establish a "State" religion or to allow it to interfere with the practices of said religions. However the history of the United States is rife with examples of religious persecution by the "State".
An example would concern the 7th Day Adventists as late as 1892 wherein their right to ignore the prohibitions against secular works on the Christian Sabbath (Sunday Laws) was viewed NOT as an inalienable right granted by the creator, but as a matter of Government, through the granting of legal "exemptions" to said law.
In fact the idea of completely unfettered "freedom of religion" is a relatively new concept in the United States and is also an ideal that remains a bone of contention among the wildly differing religions as well as the State. Ask an the members of the Followers of Christ Church, a Christian Sect that believes in prayer rather than modern medical treatment if they believe that they have "freedom of religious expression".
While America is without a doubt the free-est Country with regards to Government intervention in Religious matters, th fact is that unfettered "freedom of religion" has never really existed in this country anymore that it has existed anywhere else. The concept remains one of our most dearly held ideals but in practice the idea of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" has never quite emerged.
Huh?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 11:52pm.
"The move to the new world was NOT driven by the belief in freedom of religious expression. It was driven by the desire to be free of a State imposed religion with which those early settlers disagreed. "
Do you realize that a State imposed religion IS an affront to the freedom of religious expression? Those people left because they couldn't express their own religious beliefs openly, in public, without facing discrimination and incrimination. They couldn't live a life of their own choosing, a life dictated, if you would, by their own privately held beliefs. They were persecuted so much for even trying to live a life of their own choosing that they willfully risked their lives in a perilous journey (an ocean crossing wasn't exactly a safe thing to do in those day you know. It took MONTHS and those who endeavored to do so faced a great risk to their own lives. Many people DIED in the attempt, from disease and malnutrition, to name just a few of the hazards they faced.) across the Ocean just to escape. The Founding Fathers understood that, which is why they banned the federal government from ever doing anything like that again.
But, now comes Obama, acting like a King, imposing HIS will over Religious organizations via executive order, via his own "mandate," which is exactly what he, as President, is NOT allowed to do.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Fleeing Religious Persecution
Submitted by ThePickle on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 12:47am.
While I agree that they were fleeing religious persecution the fact remains, and is born out with a simple reading of historical fact, they did NOT do so to pursue some lofty ideal of "freedom of religious expression", something that you and I would take to mean freedom for all, rather they did so for the entirely selfish idea of freedom of religious expression for 'themselves and themselves alone'.
You are correct. The Puritans
Submitted by Soldat44 on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 1:17pm.
You are correct. The Puritans were not concerned for the well-being of Roman Catholics. Quite the opposite. They felt that the English Reformation had not gone far enough in limiting the rights of Catholics in England.
"..the fact is that
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 11:57pm.
"..the fact is that unfettered "freedom of religion" has never really existed in this country anymore that it has existed anywhere else"
Really? What planet and country are you speaking of? Try being a Christian in the 'free republic' of Egypt, Lybia, Iran or any other Arab country. get a clue pal.
Try reading what I wrote....
Submitted by ThePickle on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 12:42am.
Try reading what I wrote.... pal....I said...that the idea of "unfettered", that means not regulated nor prohibited in any way, freedom of religion does not and never has existed in this country.
While the nations you mention are a great deal more authoritarian and harsh, and as a nation we remain more free than any other nation to practice our myriad religions with little Government interference in comparison, the fact remains that the Government imposition of limits and prohibitions with regards to certain religious practices have existed from the day that the Puritans first put foot on this Continent and continue to this very day.
Now don't get me wrong I am in thunderous agreement with the ideal of "freedom of religious expression" I am simply saying that it remains, to this day, an "ideal" and not a fact.
religious freedom
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 2:31pm.
While many interpretations can be made it is my impression that the idea of 'religious freedom' in the colonies started with Catholics when they were given permission to assemble in what would be Maryland. In essence it was a tribute to the survival skills of the Catholic church in that they realized the animosity still felt toward Catholics at the time would bring the settlers of areas in direct conflict with their settlement - including fighting and ultimate destruction being outnumbered as they were. So they constrained the more open aspects of their religion and sought to be inclusive in order to grow and survive. After their struggles in England with the state church (essentially Catholic but answerable to the crown instead of the Pope) it probably seemed like a small price to pay.
I don't know if the ideas developed in Maryland led directly to the establishment of the Religious Freedoms supported by the founders.
our religous freedom ideal is
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 2:46pm.
our religous freedom ideal is codified as law - whether it actually exists or not is certainly up for debate but no religion I am aware of is banned by law here - not the case in other countries - that fact remains...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Yes,the idea that "freedom of
Submitted by ThePickle on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:02pm.
Yes,the idea that "freedom of religion" is codified in law and yes to my knowledge no religion is outright banned in this country. However, as this discussion is touching specifically on religious 'practices' I feel compelled to again point out that it remains a fact that many religious 'practices' are in fact regulated, limited or outright banned in this country, a country that has written into its very founding documents that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
One can plainly see that the 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof' portion of this simple yet elegant statement has never been fully achieved in this or any other nation on the face of this planet.
The simple fact is that "religion" is and has always been something of an enigma, based largely on the fact that the cultural/religious practices of those widely removed from our own often appear either distasteful or in many cases downright cruel and disgusting. While it is natural for a society to attempt to limit those practices we find abhorrent, in doing so we violate the very precepts own founding fathers put forth.
Can you still dance
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:20pm.
With Rattlesnakes?
"free practice thereof;" NOT
Submitted by ThePickle on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 12:11am.
Not sure if your being facetious but I will assume that you are actually seeking information.
"The states of Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee have passed laws against the use of venomous snakes and/or other reptiles in a place that endangers the lives of others, or without a permit."
"The Kentucky law specifically mentions religious services; in Kentucky snake handling is a misdemeanor and punishable by a $50 to $250 fine"
And in a fine display of religious intolerance in 1941 the State of Georgia made snake handling a felony punishable by death following the death of a seven-year-old girl from a rattlesnake bite.
However, the punishment was so severe that juries would refuse to convict, and the law was repealed in 1968.
Please note that the vast majority in the area had no problem with the State imposed "ban" on this religious practice, they simply felt that the punishment was to harsh.
The Pickle
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:10pm.
You are arguing that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich only has peanut butter. There always was the desire to practice religion as one saw fit. The problem was oppression of religions other than the State mandated Church of England. The oppression was not just having to attend at least Sunday services at an approved Church of England service, but also the harassment and punishment, from both State and vigilante, for practicing another religion. The Pilgrims were known as Separatists and were harassed, similar (but not identical of course) to the general harassment employed against Mormons in the US years later. Xenophobia is a staple of humankind and does not detract from the desire to practice religion in the way that person wants. You can want freedom to practice one's own religion while still be against the practice of someone else's religion. Duality, or cognitive dissonance, is common and does not negate the original desire of the Pilgrims to practice religion their way, free from oppression.
How the Constitution is played out is not a reflection on the magnificent words enshrined by our Founding Fathers. There will always be a negotiation between a religion and society. Rastafarians smoke marijuana but this is not allowed in the US. Certain American Indians are allowed to use hallucinogenic mushrooms in their religious observations. Mormons are no longer allowed by law to engage in polygamy. Certain Caribbean/African religion is allowed to sacrifice animals. Wiccan practice on military bases. Atheists, agnostics and apostates are essentially unfettered in the US. Every religion has had a share of crap from someone else. That isn't the Constitution's fault but the imperfections of Man. And it doesn't detract from the fact the Pilgrims wanted freedom to practice their religion freely from oppression and harassment they were subjected to despite settling in different locations in the Old World. Travel to the New World was the option they believed would give them the best opportunity.
Freedom and oppression are two sides of the same coin. Freedom of religious practice was the foundation upon which the oppression wouldn't matter otherwise. You say potato, I say potato. (that works better when you hear it instead of reading it) Same thing, just different ways of expressing it, but you can't have one without the other in this discussion. It is appropriate to frame my original post as a freedom of religion issue for the Pilgrims relative to the topic of this thread.
I thought the Puritans were also considered traitors,
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 1:15am.
in light of the English monarch being supreme head of the Church of England according to the acts of Parliament collectively to the time. At least that is what I remember from an English history lesson back when I was an undergrad (during the reign of William and Mary!).
319 Years Old
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 2:58am.
William and Mary still reigns. ;-)
My high school guidance counselor recommended it to me.
Revisionist puke
Submitted by dmann on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 10:21pm.
Melinda Henneberger is a clueless idiot......and I'm being charitable!
They can't win with their
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 12:27am.
They can't win with their moronic ideas so they want to change the rules, the typical ploy of the statist.
Religion
Submitted by GigglingGoogler on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 4:47am.
Religion? Religion is the prime reason they left the U.K! Old "TingleThighs" hates history!
All progressives do.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 1:25pm.
So do communists. Sorry, am I being redundant again? :-)
How French!
Submitted by dscott on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:24am.
The imposition of the State over the religious objections is the hallmark of French socialism. Liberals have long admired how the French subdued the Church. The abortion mandate is just one means of establishing the supremacy of the State. It has nothing to do with women's health. As all people know IF you want an abortion or birth control, there are plenty of places willing to do so, e.g. Planned Parenthood.
The issue here is making everyone pay for it, i.e. a subsidy, just like in Taxachuetts under RomneyCare. The moral equivalence of the subsidy is everyone APPROVES and ACCEPTS the behavior by financially supporting it. Many people object to abortion and or birth control and they should not be forced to pay for it over their conscientious objection or even religious belief. Not everyone objects to abortion on religious grounds, many atheists object as well. This is why subsidies of any kind are unethical as they coerce participation and thus over rule the consent of the governed. The entire premise of a Republican form of government is based upon consent. A subsidy is NOT a valid form of government activity and should be outlawed.
It's the meddling busybodies who demand their own way over the objections of the population and thus it is upon them, the liberals to convince those who disagree and failing agreement RESPECT the opinions and beliefs of others. Liberals don't respect anyone, they are intolerant Hugo Chavez wannabes. This is why they don't like the Constitution limiting government and specifically attempt to subvert the first and second amendments.
Tangentially, subsidies are an admission that a particular promoted activity is not sustainable by artificially lowering it's price. If you can't pay for it yourself and must demand others financially support it via coercion that activity CANNOT be universally implemented by everyone because the price of it will rise as it is used more. This is why when liberals get their way in mandating an activity, the total cost of the subsidized activity rises because the money to finance the subsidy must grow proportional to the total usage. E.g. Ethanol, abortion, wind power, etc. In effect, a subsidy is a form of ponzi scheme that can only benefit the few at the expense of the many. As soon as everyone tries to avail themselves of it, the system collapses under the financial cost. It is no wonder that so many liberals were ripped off by Bernie Madoff, he offered them subsidized monthly payments labeled "investment income". Virtually every liberal activity is a form of ponzi scheme with false promises to the masses.
'I'm saying, "First Amendment, First Amendment, First Amendment.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:59am.
And what I hear back is, "Wow. I had no idea you, you didn't believe in birth control."'
Which is a good example of why I don't believe the whole spiel that liberals or liberalism is more intellectual. They don't see a tension. It's a fer it or agin' it sitiation.
Among her friends (to them) her argument is not about the First Amendment it's about whether she aids or assists "backwards" ideas. This is the lib practice of rephrasing an opponents' argument that we see so often in media. "'Foodstamp President'? That's [oddly enough] reminding racist voters that President Obama is [half] black!!"
By and large, with their use of slogans and histrionics, liberals are unsuited to the idea that there are two sides to an issue or values to be navigated. Or they will get distracted by the value that they has the most emotional impact to them. Here they seem to be saying that updating society is so important that something as ephemeral as the first amendment is chaff.
aaa
Submitted by jbspry on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 12:49pm.
For most Liberals, every argument is an ad hominem argument. Their sense of sanctification causes them to see every person who disagrees as an agent of the devil.
If Liberals did not have
Submitted by John21 on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:27am.
If Liberals did not have double standards they would have no standards at all.
Liberals only see their agenda, they do not care what they have to trash to get to their agenda. The liberals believe in killing babies and that is the end, if you do not agree they want you to shut up and sit down because obviously you are stupid, racist or anti-women.
In this case they will tell you it is a women health issue, it is not, it is about the agenda and the power that the agenda will allow the liberal elite. The fact that because of this assine regulation, even if it approved by the court, will mean that the church will reduce or eliminate large portions of it charty work it traditionally does and harm the very people that the liberals say they are trying to help means nothing,
The agenda is everything and the power that that the agenda give the liberal elite is all.
They are attempting to drive this as a human rights issue, it is not, it is a power grab by elitists in this country. They do not have the courage for a revolution to install their dictatorial agenda. They are force to go slow and convince the members of society with limited knowledge that their propaganda is sound and that if you do not support it you are stupid. They have been leading to this kind of event for at least the last two decades, and America slept.
Muslims
Submitted by jpalm32 on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:37am.
Strange how the ACLU is fighting for MORE rights for MUSLIMS in schools.
aaa
Submitted by jbspry on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 12:44pm.
I suspect her comment was intended in an ironical vein.
After hearing Melinda.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 1:30pm.
Maybe the founders were wrong to guarantee a free press. [sarc]
Typical Liberal
Submitted by lkotur on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 2:10pm.
Look, Liberals only believe in Government and Force and "Do It My way or the Highway, death camps, reeducation centers etc.
People that are Catholic believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church. If you are a "lazy-fair" Catholic and only adhere to the precepts you pick and choose, then you are a cafeteria-Catholic.
Government needs to take its nose out of business where it doesn't belong.
If you are an authoritarian, it has to come to that.
Submitted by Thalpy on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 2:28pm.
For those who fail to get it, it's Obama's way or the highway. It's his unconstitutionally selected czars' way or the highway. If any of us ever wants to make individual decisions in a sovereign nation again, Obama must go.