Freedom of Conscience

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

-- Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Some Catholics might feel a need to defend the Catholic Church, even when they personally do not follow its dictates (contra a representative on Chris Hayes this morning, they don't just treat things like birth control like lying -- they think lying is generally bad and don't continuously use it, even in the confessional [birth control pills]). Still, ultimately, personal decision making here is usually most important to them.   The stance of an established church, even their own oftentimes, notwithstanding.

The Universal Life Church "ordains" ministers on demand as long as they are human beings (as far as they know) and the individuals are to use their conscience to determine what is "good."  There are a few limitations here, such as respecting the rights of others, but ultimately the theme is individual conscience. This has been accepted, even in the Deep South, as enough for a "religion" to exist.  A modern day definition to be sure, since "religion" was understood a bit more broadly back in the day where Jefferson and Paine might be deemed "atheists" even though both believed in God and at times even a final judgment of some sort.  A more respected example here would be Unitarian-Universalism, which also welcome a diverse group, including atheists and agnostics, setting forth certain basic rules of equality and equal respect. 

I do not like the term "atheist" because it has a certain close-minded implication that is in part anti-religion. This does not mean the term necessarily implies that, but it tends to oftentimes.  I do not think disbelief in "God" warrants that, particularly since "religion" should be defined broadly (see, e.g., U.S. v. Seeger).  A thing of central importance for me is freedom of conscience, which is inhibited by selective authorization of one or the other side of things that divide conscientious people.  Note, e.g., the founding principles of a secularist student group, strongly supported by an atheist blogger:

The mission of the Secular Student Alliance is to organize, unite, educate, and serve students and student communities that promote the ideals of scientific and critical inquiry, democracy, secularism, and human-based ethics. We envision a future in which nontheistic students are respected voices in public discourse and vital partners in the secular movement's charge against irrationality and dogma.

This movement welcomes a diverse group:

We embrace the common goals and shared aspects of all naturalistic, secular worldviews. Secular Student Alliance affiliates include, but are not limited to, atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, naturalists, brights, Pastafarians, and many others.

Labels can hold people back. Some "freethinkers" or "skeptics" or whatever might belong to some "religious" community of some sort but welcome a secular government and the other ends here.  The bottom line is a respect for freedom of conscience (broadly defined) and opposing those who would inhibit that by setting rules from above that interferes with that.  Such breadth requires some line drawing and compromises.

The contraceptives controversy underlines this -- the individual need not use contraceptives, the religious institutions do not have to distribute them.  These are important values to respect.  But, as part of a wider regulation of health care and employment, they cannot block individual conscience in various respects, particularly when the institution is not purely religious and serves a diverse group, including those not members of the religion. The result threatens individual liberty. Money being fungible, absolutism becomes even less possible, arbitrary line drawing to be avoided, even though the proper line might be somewhat hazy and open to debate/compromise.*

If we were less concerned with individual liberty, including conscientious choices of broad discretion, a different path might be possible. But, we are so concerned.  Particularly given their minority view, the Catholic Church here and some other group in some other context should understand that.

---

* The special treatment of abortion is but one example here.

Update: A lot of the coverage on the contraceptives controversy here is about symbolism and as this discussion noted "recognition" if not respect.  Prop 8 is a form of that -- a means to give the other side something, though unlike here, another group is seriously getting harmed in the process.  Respect of religion, especially in our modern regulatory state, is a big factor to consider.  But, the rule already respected religion.