Coakley Invents New Rules on Separation of Church and State
Posted on 14. Jan, 2010 by James Devere in Political News
In a radio interview today, Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley mischaracterized separation of church and state to an embarrassing degree. The background is a repeated claim by Coakley that Scott Brown prefers legislation that would deny rape victims the morning-after pill. However, in reality her claims stem from an amendment that Brown authored in Massachusetts that allowed an individual to decline giving birth control in the case of a personal moral or religious objection. Coakley’s claim that Brown would favor allowing emergency rooms to deny care is bit of a stretch, to say the least.
Today, Ken Pittman of WBSM in Massachusetts followed a line of questioning that brought the Senate candidate to the conclusion that, under the ruling of separation of church and state, someone with moral convictions should not work in an emergency room. Coakley stated, “You can have religious freedom but you shouldn’t work in an emergency room.” So, according to Coakley we can choose between our economic freedom or our religious freedom.
Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, let’s be clear.
Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room. (1)
Separation of church and state, by and large, has been a pillar of American politics. Though the courts have increasingly interpreted it as a complete lack of religion in government affairs, even they have not extended it to the career choices of private citizens. It occurred to me as I listened to Ms. Coakley that maybe her belief is that the state should be controlling more aspects of our lives. However, even if the argument could be made that government should run healthcare, and all hospitals become institutions of the state, it still would not be okay to discrimate against a doctor because of their religion.
Stretching the Attory General’s position, as she has done with her opponent, maybe what she is saying is that we should, in pursuit of healthcare reform, close all religious charity hospitals. America has a stong sense of charity encouraged by various religions. Coakley could have made her point (she does have one) that relates to women’s health without taking a position that steps on others’ personal freedoms.
So, maybe we have gotten the debate all wrong. Maybe the big government types are not socialists; maybe they are just anti-religious fanatics who believe that if they make government paramount in our lives, then they can use separation of church and state to ban religion.
