Increase in No Religion?

[Francis Beckwith]

There is a difference, I think.  In the Catholic Charities case, the state
defined religion in such a way that anything that did not constitute worship
or evangelism was not religion (thus excluding organizations like CC that
engage in works of mercy).  Also, CC was not being taxed and that money
going into a general fund that was eventually distributed to programs with
which it disagreed. Rather, CC was being forced to directly fund a private
health care program that supplied contraceptives.  So, there was no
government middle-man so to speak.  It is the state directing the religious
organization to give its money directly to something with which it
disagrees.  

Frank

P. S. I see that you will be APSA. Perhaps our paths will cross.


On 8/7/05 5:42 PM, "Sanford Levinson" <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050807/ac1540f7/attachment.htm