Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Public policy should be grounded in the Constitution, not scripture
Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?
In recent months the debate over health care reform has escalated into one of the most intense national discussions we have experienced in a long time. Many different individuals and organizations have expressed contradictory opinions with great emotion and sometimes used rhetoric devoid of civility. With roughly 44 million Americans uninsured, the fervor among supporters of health care reform should come as no surprise. However, the vigor of these efforts has been matched equally by those opposing reform for one reason or another.
Like many civic-minded residents of this country, the U.S. Catholic bishops have weighed in on this issue heavily. And, they have every right to do so--to organize and advocate for public policies that they see as consistent with their religious faith. The same cannot be said for members of the United States Congress. Our elected representatives have a sworn obligation to make decisions guided by the U.S. Constitution, not the sectarian morality derived from a singular religious tradition. To them is entrusted responsibility for providing for the public welfare of all individuals.
I applaud citizens--personal and institutional--who challenge what they view as misguided or dangerous morality as judged by their particular moral values. But, I also find dangerous and unconstitutional the idea that a specific sectarian morality should be the benchmark for national legislation. Efforts to move in that direction also should be challenged.
As a Baptist minister, I understand, appreciate, and respect the important role morality plays in guiding actions. But, I also understand, appreciate, and respect governmental leaders who look beyond sectarian morality to legislate policies that strengthen our democracy and its commitment to equality and justice for everyone. The Catholic bishops' view on abortion - emanating from their interpretation of religious texts - is an important perspective to be considered, but it is a perspective not shared by the entire religious community or even by fifty-percent of the American people who are members of the Catholic communion. Compassion is a religious value consistent with the priorities of democracy. I believe in compassion for everyone. Committed to my faith tradition, I consider myself "pro-life" in the broad sense of that term. For me, a "right to life" is not singularly a comment related to an unborn fetus; it also involves 44 million Americans who lack the assurance of good medial care to which they have a right and for which they desire as they seek to lead healthy lives. Just because the Catholic bishops have placed the abortion issue at the top of their "morality pyramid," that does not mean that everyone in the nation has to do the same.
Though religious people debate moral priorities and the source of their authority, such is not the responsibility constitutionally imposed on the U.S. Congress, regardless of the individual religious preferences of its members. Religious leaders cannot be allowed to use one particular interpretation of scripture-based morality to compel Congress to legislate sectarian morality. Congress is charged with legislating policies that, as far as possible, benefit the entire nation. Congressional debate on any issue, health care included, should focus on the public welfare and not on selected passages of scripture or interpretive views from religious authorities, whether that means Catholic bishops or the people in my tradition whom I most respect and honor.
I believe that the efforts to make changes to our health care system are in the best interest of all people. Others may disagree, as it seems the bishops do. But any counterpoint to my belief cannot be grounded solely in religion, and neither should government policymaking. If religious leaders want to influence this policymaking, they may look to their faith for guidance, but in the end they must ensure that their positions are grounded in the Constitution.
By
Welton Gaddy
|
November 17, 2009; 6:43 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: People of faith are citizens, too |
Next: A Constitutional right
Posted by: Climacus | November 24, 2009 6:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Abortion intentionally takes the life of a distinct, unique, human life which is by definition innocent. The intentional taking of innocent human life is wrong. Therefore abortion is wrong.
Which part of that argument is religious? The first part is a scientific fact, not a religious belief. You cannot deny the second premise without making the slaughter of innocents morally permissible.
Either abortion is wrong, or human life has no inherent value and subject to the arbitrary whim of the powerful. Any other position is logically incoherent.
Posted by: stephenwhite81 | November 24, 2009 3:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you, a well balanced perspective.
Posted by: job22 | November 21, 2009 9:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
"Public policy should be grounded in the Constitution"
What does this even mean? The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, put very little substantive policy content into the Constitution. It is not what you'd call a policy document, as such. Not that what little is there is unimportant - far from it - but its subject matter is quite limited and mostly concerns a relatively narrow set of baseline principles about relations between government and the governed. You can design legislation to be *consistent* with the Constitution, but hardly any major legislative policy initiatives - certainly not healthcare policy, which the Constitution doesn't address - could accurately be said to be "grounded in the Constitution".