Rally for religious liberty

More than an estimated 1,000 people, nearly all of them wearing red, crammed into the Capitol Rotunda on Tuesday in Jefferson City. Their intent was to rally for religious liberty and protest President Barack Obama’s policy requiring insurance companies to cover the costs to provide free birth control to women working at religious-affiliated institutions such as hospitals and colleges. Numerous religious leaders addressed the crowd, drawing cheers and loud applause and several “Amens” throughout the rally.

By Michelle Brooks

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Thousands of believers filled the Missouri Capitol on Tuesday with shouts and cheers celebrating their religious freedom.

The recent federal healthcare mandate is the issue that has united Protestant denominations and Catholics.

“As a woman, I want to make sure everybody understands: This is not about women’s issues at all,” said Maggie Karner, director of life and health ministries for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, at a noon rally in the Rotunda.

The remark raised the largest audible response, bringing red-clad supporters to their feet.

Read additional details in our newspaper or e-Edition. Newspaper subscribers: Click on an e-Edition article and log in using your current account information at no extra charge. For e-edition help, e-mail circ@newstribune.com. Click here to purchase the full version of archived articles.

More like this story

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

I appreciate these people petitioning their government for a redress of greivances, but I don't see the merit in the assertion that their constitutional rights are being violated.

I think the gist of the law of religious freedom is that the government may not pass a law with the intent and purpose of restricting religious freedom. BUT (and this is a big BUT): the government MAY pass laws with a rational, religiously neutral intent and purpose, and the law IS NOT invalid even if it happens to limit someone's religious freedom. Under the RFRA, a neutral law may NOT impose a substantial burden on religious freedom, unless the law serves a compelling government interest and the law is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

For one thing, I'm not sure that institutions, including the Catholic heirarchy, even HAVE religious freedom. A 501(c)3 corporation cannot have "faith." It can't experience contrition or grace. It cannot ponder God or perceive the Holy Spirit. How can an institution have "faith"? I believe only individual humans can have faith, but that's just me.

Anyway, back to the law: The law means you can't just pick and choose what laws to follow just because you have a certain religious belief. Think of it this way: a Rastafarian who believes in smoking marijuana as a religious sacrament can STILL be punished under state and federal drug laws, BECAUSE drug laws are religiously neutral and do not substantially burden the Rastafarian faith.

Basically, you can believe in smoking pot religiously, but you can't do it legally. Maybe that's a religious burden, but tough. Our society puts more value on public safety laws than the religious freedom to smoke pot.

Same with the birth control deal. Our society has decided that full access to birth control is important. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get special exception to the law. You just don't get to pick and choose which laws you follow.

That's what the law is. That's what living in a society means.

spelchek 1 year, 2 months ago

Going out on a limb: "Our society has decided that full access to birth control is important. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get special exception to the law.." -- Both sentences are baseless and mere opinion.
The 2nd amendment says I have the "right" to bear arms, I do not own a gun and I want a law passed and enforced that you (tax payer) have to buy me a gun because it's my right; and if you don't, pay a fine. I don't care about what you believe in, just do it because: That's what the law is. That's what living in a society means.

JMO 1 year, 2 months ago

Ok, I have to ask because I keep seeing this over and over and over...but I don't think it's right. My understanding of the law at issue is that it requires companies offering insurance to have the insruance cover birth control. Yet people keep saying, "I shouldn't pay for YOUR birth control." How the heck is insurance covering it making YOU or any taxpayer pay for it?

By the way Sequoia...if there was a "thumbs up" button, I'd give you one. I agree completely.

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

Society HAS decided that full access to birth control is important. I'm not saying it is a RIGHT. But the birth control law was fully litigated and passed by the legislature. Everyone had their chance to have their say. It passed. That's fact. Not opinion. And you CAN't just exempt yourself from law. That's not opinion either. As I explained, THAT'S THE LAW.

Your analogy is inapt. I'm not saying insurance co's should provide birth control because women have a right to birth control. I'm saying that we passed a law requiring insurance companies to provide birth control because it is rationally a good idea, and institutions cannot exempt themselves from the law based on religious belief. The burden is not significant enough to invoke RFRA or the relgious freedom clause.

Religious freedom is not absolute. That's my point.

sickandtired 1 year, 2 months ago

What you also have to remember Sequoia is that included in the original mandate there was a religious freedom clause that allowed all religious organizations to opt out of the offering of birth control and birth control/abortive procedures. What the people in this rally are saying is that they are not telling you that you cannot use any birth control they just don not want to have to offer it. what you have to remember is that under Obamacare private insurance has to be offered at a comparable rate to company backed plans. So if you want birth control then get your own private plan. The only reason Obama did it this way is because he wanted a way to control how religion worked.

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

Obama was not trying to control how religion works. Please. Get a grip.

The point of the birth control law is to make sure every woman can have access to birth control, even if they can't afford a private insurance plan. This helps all women control childbirth, which positively affects productivity and a household's ability to plan and save.

Look, people on here keep acting like women are saying they have the RIGHT to birth control. No. It's about whether all employers have to follow the law.

The law is that all insurance cos. have to provide birth control w/o copay. What the people in this rally are saying is that they don't want to follow that law.

I understand them not wanting to follow it. We all have to follow some laws we don't want to. I'm saying their RIGHTS are not being violated.

And honestly, the extent to which an individual religious person is "paying for" or "providing" birth control in this case is pretty remote. This whole controversy is a case of politicians exploiting religion. It's manufactured outrage, in my opinion. Christians are not being persecuted in America, people. Get some perspective.

spelchek 1 year, 2 months ago

You lost me at "we passed". Democrats own this mess, now the Supreme Court, and voters shall clean it up come November .

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

Well, yeah, "we" as in "the American system." Obama promised health care reform. People voted for him. Congressional representatives passed the law. I realize you don't like the law, but there is nothing invalid about how it came to be.

The Supreme Court is considerding the mandate to purchase insurance. The birth control doesn't have anything to do (legally speaking) with what's going on at the Supreme Court. Different Constitutional issues.

EulerPath 1 year, 2 months ago

Yes Sequoia the Supreme Court is only considering the mandate. At the same time they are also asking the question if the mandate is taken out then what to do with the rest of the law. This is a big question because the mandate is like the heart of the law. Can this law be a good thing if you just leave a part of it.

Also, I do believe we need to have an universal health care. But Obamacare is not the answer, how can a law that is 1000+ pages long make something better? It can't.

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

If the court strikes down the individual mandate, it may act as a kick in the direction of single-payer universal healthcare, which, whatever its costs and benefits, everyone agrees would be constitutional. Or the "public option."

Ironic, isn't it? A Republican challenge to a formerly-Republican idea (the individual private mandate) may ultimately bring about a decidedly un-Republican alternative.

spelchek 1 year, 2 months ago

"there is nothing invalid about how it came to be." --- Never questioned the legality of it's passing, just "who" passed it. Regardless, something is wrong when you are promised unparalleled transparency from an administration that bribed and strong armed enough votes at midnight on Christmas Eve solely by democrats without reading the actual bill. This is not the the "American system" I was thinking of.

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

Legislation ain't pretty.

spelchek 1 year, 2 months ago

'But back during the 2008 campaign, Obama argued strenuously against the individual mandate. In a debate in South Carolina, he said: "A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. ... But I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care. The problem is they can't afford it. And that's why my plan emphasises lowering costs."'

dokeus6 1 year, 2 months ago

Since you are openly saying that the Individual Mandate is the Republican's Idea. How come you are chastising Obama for catering to the crybaby's?

spelchek 1 year, 2 months ago

"Legislation ain't pretty." -- If this law is ruled unconstitutional, democrats will forever be stained with passing this unread freedom killing monstrosity. Republicans were wise to avoid tainting their names via vote; and potentially have more foresight than democrats. I'm proud American's are wise enough to see past the smoke and mirrors the dem's use to pass laws.

lovemykids 1 year, 2 months ago

The truth is both teams suck. Both sides are PART of the smoke and mirrors. Why do you think it is that everyone we send to Washington comes back corrupt?

JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago

The sad thing is the invasion of privacy. Obamacare will require electronic medical records to be available to all providers that clearly shows when a woman is having her period, what form of birth control a woman is using, how often she purchases it, etc. Do we really want all this personal information floating about on the World Wide Web for hackers and everyone else to see?

asb 1 year, 2 months ago

It already is Lifer, legally and otherwise.

wcywing 1 year, 2 months ago

you would think so. dems and repubs are both dumb.

tulunk 1 year, 2 months ago

Look at it this way. Legal sexual intercourse for any other reason than procreation is simply for pleasure or excitement . Fine, that's OK. But isn't that your choice? So if I want to take up sky-diving instead recreational sex can I expect society to provide money for an airplane and a parachute? If your birth control pill fails, you probably won't get a disease, you'll get a child. If my parachute fails,........... splat. I demand my rights to a chute. I'm entitled!

JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago

I want a PlayStation 3! If the government is going to mandate birth control for recreational sex, then I want them to mandate a PlayStation 3 for every household that wants one.

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

Hopefully you're not serious. The law is not intended to satisfy women's desire for inconsequential recreational sex. The law's purpose is to provide bc because it is good for the economy as a whole. This fixation on a promiscuous straw women is weird. I assume your tongue is in cheek.

JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago

Just close your legs and save some money. What's wrong with personal responsibility and accountability?

sickandtired 1 year, 2 months ago

Sequoia how is BC good for the economy? That is a new one to me. The only thing that you are doing by providing BC at no cost is allowing 85% of women( because according to prior articles and arguements only 15% use it for other things) to have sex without consequence. Why should I be forced to offer BC or pay for BC for somebody that just wants to have sex whenever they want. IF you want to say it is good for the economy0 how is that?

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

The law is good for the economy because it allows all women (not just those who can afford to go buy an additional private drug plan on top of their work-related plan) access to birth control. This allows them to control how many children they have. Women can stay in the work force until they are ready to have children, and families can save more money if they are able to control how many children they have. That's two ways.

Also, birth control holds down insurance costs overall, because it saves the health care costs related to those babies that aren't conceived.

This is why birth control is good for the economy. The issue is NOT "just so women can have sex whenever they want." This focus on sex gets attention for talk show hosts, but it misses the public policy reasons that support the law.

BTW LIfer, taking birth control IS exercising personal responsibility, isn't it?

JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago

So is abstaining. Cheaper and healthier.

Sequoia 1 year, 2 months ago

Yeah, well, not getting sick is cheaper and healthier than getting sick. But that's what insurance is. A hedge against needing care.

asb 1 year, 2 months ago

It's heartwarming to see religious conservatives flocking as if compelled by divine message gathering to plead in remarkably similar voice and phrase for something they already have. All dressed in red, chanting words that many of them don't understand, divining an enemy where none exists, it brings a tear of joy and a certain rumbling in the gut . . .

clingingredneck 1 year, 2 months ago

Wow, let me guess. You are an atheist who despises all forms of religion. Who would have thunk someone who has drunk as much of the koolaid as you have would lean that way. Ok, if you want to force the catholics to provide birth control that is so burdomsome ($7-9 dollars at wal-mart), then lets go after some of the other customs. I want the Muslim women to give up their head scarves. It doesn't let me see who they are and could be a security threat. Let's also go after those honor killings that are so common in the Islamic community. How about we let their women drive cars? That is suppression of freedom. What's good for the goose is good for the gander asb.

Rally for religious liberty

More like this story

Comments