This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


petersinger

Peter Singer on 'Religious Freedom'

Peter Singer, Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, has recently loosed his pen on the subject of religious freedom, arguing for the restriction of “the legitimate defense of religious freedom to rejecting proposals that stop people from practicing their religion.”

Sounds reasonable enough. But set some examples alongside Singer’s suggestion. The Dutch Parliament is considering a law requiring livestock to be stunned before slaughter. Jewish and Muslim leaders have united in protest, since their dietary doctrines allow eating meat only from animals that were conscious when killed. Says Singer: “When people are prohibited from practicing their religion—for example, by laws that bar worshiping in certain ways—there can be no doubt that their freedom of religion has been violated. But prohibiting the ritual slaughter of animals does not stop Jews or Muslims from practicing their religion.” After all, neither Judaism nor Islam requires the eating of meat. Jews and Muslims could therefore simply forgo eating meat without thereby violating any religious doctrine. And so Singer concludes that this law would not unduly curtail religious freedom.

Taking these claims in hand like a hammer, Singer then turns to the truly tough nut: the Obama Administration’s requirement that Catholic universities and hospitals provide their employees with health insurance policies that cover contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals. The use of these contradicts Catholic teaching. Yet, says Singer, no Catholic teaching requires that Catholics run hospitals and universities. By now you can likely guess his solution: Catholics should simply relinquish their universities and hospitals. For Singer, running hospitals and universities, like eating meat, is a convenience one can do without. Since this is an open possibility—and one that does not violate any Catholic teaching—the Obama Administration’s mandate does not unduly restrict religious freedom, on Singer’s view.

Continue reading at www.firstthings.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • KnowTheTruthToday

    Truly, his thinking has been tarnished.

  • George_S

    Singer has his head in a dark and unnatural place.

  • daves

    I am pretty sure the courts will agree with Mr. Singer. There are costs to doing business in the U.S. and the Catholics have another option to not provide health insurance to their employees.

    They do not have to use contraception but they do not have the right to deny that coverage to their employees.

    • Eileen

      Catholics should not have to pay for something that is against their beliefs. As an individual tax payer should not have my tax dollars going to support planned parenthood and the termination of life of an innocent helpless baby. It's is the government that has crossed the line by forcing their healthcare law down everyones throats. What they did is unconstitutioal. The government should stay out of our lives. Their main purpose is national defense and infrastructure. The moral standards of democrats are no higher then that of the nazis who slaughtered millions of innocent men, women and children.

    • petroskhan1262

      Anyone who has read my posts will know that I am no defender of catholicism, far from it. However, I am a defender of what is Constitutional, and right.

      How on earth can you say that any organization, especially a religious one, doesn't have the right to practice its religion? Catholics are opposed to contraception. Don't like their policies? Work somewhere else. I would never work for a catholic organization, because I oppose (most vehemently) their stand on nearly every religious issue imaginable. Guess what? I DON'T HAVE TO. I can work wherever I wish.

      I'm sick and tired of whiny little cry-babies who join organizations, or accept employment with companies, whose aims, goals and positions on issues are well-known, and who then turn around demanding that the organization change to suit them. It's like building your house next to a garbage dump, then complaining about the smell.

      People need to grow up, and stop whining about everything. And I am forced to wonder if you would be so defensive on this issue, if the roles were reversed. If someone joined an atheist group, and starting complaining that they didn't celebrate (or allow time off for) some religious holy day, would you defend his rights then? Or call him (rightly so, in my book) an idiotic child, crying over his own mistakes?

  • Evermyrtle

    Singer proves that he has not a clue what religion really is. This article is a total waste of time and effort to read it.

  • petroskhan1262

    Singer is quite the contortionist. Head up his rear, AND his foot in his mouth. Wow.

  • Chris P

    They are not prohibited from practicing their religion. They are required to humanely kill animals because their methods of killing animals are inhumane. We, as a society, have determined that some religious practices are detrimental to the planet.

    • keyboardshark

      Liberals are so worried about the treatment of animals, yet think it's OK to kill a baby in its Mother's womb by abortion.

  • myth buster

    Catholic teaching most certainly does say that the Church is required to run schools and hospitals where able, for educating children is vital to faith formation and healing the sick is a corporal work of mercy which Christ will not hold us guiltless for neglecting.

    And another thing, St. Luke would vomit at the suggestion that he should conflate administering poison with practicing medicine. He, like the other disciples of Hippocrates, took an oath never to administer poisons or abortifacients, nor use the medical arts for evil or teach them to anyone who would refuse to take the solemn and self-malefactory Hippocratic Oath. The only part of the Hippocratic Oath that violates Christian teaching is the original invocation, which was to the pagan god, Apollo. The modern version uses a Christian invocation instead, while preserving the body of the oath.