Increase in No Religion?

[Sanford Levinson]

Frank Beckwith writes:   In any event, it seems to me that it is not clear how the public good is served by the state using its coercive power to force Catholic Charities to fund what it does not believe is moral, and which is part of a well-established tradition in moral philosophy.  
 
I have a certain sympathy for this claim, but I can't figure out why the Catholic Charities should be treated any better on this score than any individual Catholic or, of course, pacifist who belives that it is immoral to force him/her to contribute to what is, by definition, the immoral use of force.  Are we forced back into "direct, indirect" tests to differentiate the Charities and the individual.  But I presume that all the Charities must do is to purchase insurance policies that include coverage of contraception, which seems pretty "indirect" to me.  
 
sandy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050807/84f60780/attachment.htm