Do you believe in freedom of religion? President Obama does, and he is defending Americans’ freedom of religion against Mitt Romney and Fox News in the administration of his health care bill.
The president allows each woman to decide for herself whether or not to ask her insurance company to cover contraception. If this violates a woman’s religious principles, she would never ask. A woman would make such a request only if contraception fit her principles. In short, the President has guaranteed that each woman can act according to her religious principles. He has made a strong defense of freedom of religion.
In difficult cases, he has extended freedom of religion even further, beyond people to churches and houses of worship. Insurance companies are required to cover contraception with no co-pays for the women whose health care they are covering. This guarantees freedom of religion for the women covered, and does not affect insurance companies, which are neither people nor religious institutions.
What about hospitals, charities with a religious affiliation, and religious employers who have a moral objection to contraception? Women getting health care paid through these institutions will be able to obtain contraception from the insurance companies, not the religious institutions. Thus the president has found a way to extend freedom of religion not only to all women, but even beyond people to churches and religious employers.
This makes President Obama a remarkable champion of freedom of religion in contemporary American history.
Moreover, President Obama is very much in touch with the values of Americans. A recent Gallup Poll has shown that, in the US, 82 per cent of Catholics think that birth control is “morally acceptable.” 90 per cent of non-Catholics believe the same. Overall, 89 per cent of Americans agree on this. In the May 2012 poll, Gallup tested beliefs about the moral acceptability of 18 issues total, including divorce, gambling, stem cell research, the death penalty, gay relationships, and so on. Contraception had by far the greatest approval rating. Divorce, the next on the list, had only 67 per cent approval compared to 89 per cent for contraception.
Mitt Romney and Fox News, on the other hand, are proposing a huge backward step on freedom of religion. Romney has said he would support a bill that would allow employers and insurers to deny their female employees insurance coverage for birth control and other health services, based on the religious beliefs of the employers and insurers. As far as employers are concerned, this fits with President Obama’s policy. But the extension to insurance companies violates the freedom of religion that the President guaranteed to women.
In addition, Romney has said he would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood, an organization that allows women freedom of religion by supplying contraception if they choose to ask for it. This would be another major blow to freedom of religion.In short, Romney is advocating, and would take, a big backward step to deny freedom of religion to women.
Incidentally, Romney’s ad, which falsely accuses the president of what Romney himself is advocating, namely denial of religious freedom, is entitled “Be Not Afraid,” using Biblical language, as if he were God or a prophet.
Given that 89 per cent of the American people support contraception, we have no reason to be afraid of Romney — unless we let him get away with his attempt to frame the President as being against religion. The President’s advance in promoting freedom of religion should be shouted from the rooftops.
George Lakoff is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, where he has taught since 1972. He previously taught at Harvard (1965-69) and the University of Michigan (1969-1972). He graduated from MIT in 1962 (in Mathematics and Literature) and received his PhD in Linguistics from Indiana University in 1966.
© 2012 NATIONOFCHANGE
CONNECT
8 comments on "Obama Defends Freedom of Religion: Be Not Afraid of Mitt Romney"
September 24, 2012 7:57am
Jewweinstein you got it wrong about Gaza! The situation there is the result of Judeo-Nazism (government-incited and promoted hatred and persecution and genocide, in the name of sementism, of minority ethnics and other religions). Obama's policies have been indulgent - or outright supportive - of the extermination camps in Palestine.
September 17, 2012 8:22pm
What the Constitution guarantees isn't "Freedom of Religion" but rather and more importantly, "Freedom FROM Religion". Which is why the seperation of church and state and no religious test for office were written into it, to ensure the peoples' liberties from the enslavement of religion.
September 17, 2012 5:55pm
Yes, domestically Obama defends freedom of religion. But not overseas, when it comes to freedom for Buddhism in Tibet, or freedom from Islamo-nazism (government-incited and promoted hatred and persecution and genocide, in the name of Islam, of minority ethnics and other religions). Obama's policies have been indulgent - or outright supportive - of existing and new Islamo-nazi regimes in Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Gaza, and Sudan.
September 17, 2012 4:19pm
freedom to the author is i chose an action and have freedom to make you pay for it
September 17, 2012 11:29am
...furthermore, what about the rights to choose non-GMO foods, or to choose to spend our tax doLlars, like the $2 billion per week we spend in Afghanistan, choosing to free Bradley Manning for his brave act in blowing the whistle on the illegal atrocities performed by our military? What about the right to have our tax dollars spent the way we want, like ending the online pedophile epidemic (protect.org/tech) instead of the billions we spend on criminalizing marijuana? NO, THIS IS NOT EMPOWERING FOR WOMEN!
What about the rights to due process that have been removed by Obama's indefinite detention law (the NDAA) which allows our military to pick any of us up off the streets and detain us indefinitely without charge or trial? NO, THIS IS NOT EMPOWERING FOR WOMEN!
Obama frequently says things he does not mean. (Can anyone name ONE Bush policy that Obama has not expanded upon? Can anyone name one Bush record that Obama has not broken?) How did "Yes We Can" turn into "No We Can't" get rid of Bush's ugliest policies? NO, THIS IS NOT EMPOWERING FOR WOMEN!
And Elena Kagan recently just sided with the Alito/Scalia/Thomas crowd on removing our Miranda rights... And do we really want someone with a worse human rights record than Bush, choosing our Supreme Court Justices? NO, THIS IS NOT EMPOWERING FOR WOMEN!
Women's rights are inseparable to all the rights listed above (and so much more not mentioned above), that Obama has demonstrated the utmost disrespect! Despite Obama's great PR with this women's health coverage, it is no reason for us to forget that Obama is very bad for women's rights. It takes a severe case of cognitive dissonance not to recognize that what is bad for human rights is also very bad for women's rights!
I'm voting for Jill Stein. And don't try that "Romney will be worse" mantra on me because there is NOTHING worse than the loss of our human rights, democracy, and the earth, which will happen if Obama is re-elected. When the end result is the same, the "differences" are just meaningless drivel. Romney=Obama. Elect either of them and we'll never have our human rights, democracy, and the earth again.
September 17, 2012 11:07am
Romney's idea of "freedom of religion" is for the right to force one's religious beliefs on others. such as, forcing all pregnant women, or women seeking birth control pills, to have children.
The problem with Obama is that this is all PR for him and he doesn't care about religious freedom when it comes to Arabic people. Obama has no respect for civil liberties which are inseparable to the rights to abortion or birth control.
So are we really willing to give up our human rights, democracy, and the earth for an illusional right to abortion , when those rights are impossible to secure in a country without civil liberties and democracy? Are we that foolish?
If we really care about the rights to birth control and abortion then why aren't we mobilizing behind a non-corporate presidential candidate like Jill Stein?
September 17, 2012 10:52am
Very few have even mentioned the underlying concept of the Romney/Ryan/GOP thinking. They talk, insessantly, about reducing government's intrusion into our lives. Yet the reality is that they seek to intrude into the lives of ordinary Americans on moral issues. Unless we conform to their ideas of morality, they would legislate to control our lives. This article is about controception but it points up the issues of who we love, how we love, the size of our families, the nature of our relationship with, or without God. Only in the area of business and finance do they want government out of the way. Beyond that it should be pointed out that Democrats govern while Republicans rule.
September 17, 2012 7:17am
This is an excellent framing... "Freedom of Religion" is a "Freedom of Personal Choice".
The Moral Mission of government is to protect and empower the people. Empowering women and families to make these important decisions is about guaranteeing freedom.
Excellent article!