In the political context, certainly, as it is understood in France, secularism or laïcité does not restrict the religious beliefs of individuals; it excludes their intervention in, or impact on, the relations between private individuals and public authorities (the state, territorial authorities, public administration, and public services). It obliges individuals to respect common rules in these relations; they cannot exempt themselves from them for religious reasons – which come down to asserting the primacy of these rules over personal beliefs.

“Law is the expression of the general will.. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes..”

No Catholic theologian has ever disputed this rather obvious proposition.

This is all news to me. I’m pro-contraceptives, so I’m by no means defending the Catholic position, but I’ve never heard a Catholic give that qualification about using contraceptives before. I’ll have to talk with more Catholics about this issue, because most of the ones I’ve talked to are against birth control in any context.

But I’m not satisfied with the distinction you make involving birth control and using it “primarily” for non-contraceptive reasons. Your analogy to high dose narcotics doesn’t match, because narcotics are designed to remedy pain; death only happens when they are abused. Contraceptives like birth control are designed to be contraceptives; using them for hormonal imbalances, irregular periods, or acne is a secondary usage. It’s not as if birth control secondarily disables reproductive function; that’s its primary goal.

First of all, even if your understanding of the Catholic position on contraceptives is true, that’s not been the nature of the responses to what was Obama’s mandate. Most people weren’t saying, “We’re fine with contraceptives, it just depends on the circumstances.” They were saying, “We’re opposed to contraceptives, and we reject being forced to supply them.” My experience with Catholics has been in the latter of the two responses. Keep in mind it was a controversy when Pope Benedict suggested that if one was involved in prostitution it would be sensible to wear a condom; I think that’s reflective of how stringent the Catholic view on birth control is.

Second, if Catholics had the conditional view on birth control that you cite, then there would be an inconsistency. This means that if a woman was taking birth control for non-contraceptive reasons, she couldn’t have sex with her spouse. Otherwise, she’d be violating the Catholic view of sex, even though that wasn’t her intent with taking birth control.

You don’t think that there is a sense in which a policy makers can aim at neutrality between these competing religions? Must every policy be biased towards or against one or more of the religions? If not, then a policy that is not so biased is, in a significant sense, neutral, is it not?

Maybe it’d be better to start with an even simpler scenario. A parent has two children who are fighting over a toy. Is there not any way to come up with a rule for them that isn’t biased towards one or another (and so is neutral in the relevant sense)?

“…policies which do aim for neutrality towards competing ideological views and commitments, religious or otherwise.”

I recognize what you’re talking about. I’m saying that the notion of “aiming for neutrality” does not make sense. My argument is that there is no “neutrality” between beliefs, because everything is a belief. Secularism is a belief just as much of a belief as Christianity is, even though it’s not as well defined.

Nikolai’s point is that although the Catholic church claims to allow birth control for non-fertility reasons, this would contradict their stance on the legislation.

In the face of this bill they are claiming full exemption from having to provide birth control on religious grounds. Not partial exemption in only cases of fertility control. Effectively they’re opposed to all forms of contraception. Even though they think it’s moral in some cases, they’d just rather not cover it and claim it violates their first amendment right (even though, according to you, it’s not against their religion)

If this were true, then why would they roundly reject providing contraceptives at all, which is what they’re doing now? The church isn’t saying, “We’ll provide birth control, so long as it’s not for contraceptive reasons.” They’re saying, “We won’ provide birth control at all.”

I’m sorry but I’m afraid that you’re the one confusing what I’m saying.

“First, being opposed to Jehovah Witness’ opposition to blood transfusions is not the same as mandating that they PROVIDE blood transfusions, for instance, mandating they donate blood. This is a more comparable situation.”

In the health care situation which this article addresses, it has nothing to do with institutions providing blood transfusions, but covering the blood transfusions in their health insurance plans. Catholic institutions, schools for example, were to be required under the health care legislation to cover contraception in their health insurance plans for employees.

This is what man religious institutions were protesting against. Not being forced to provide contraception, but covering contraception. The reason that they claim that they shouldn’t be forced to cover contraception is because it’s against their religious beliefs.

Jehovah Witness institutions are also opposed to blood transfusions. Would we give them similar exemption from having to cover this in their insurance that they provide to employees?

“Secondly, under our constitutional & federalist regime, states may mandate things the federal gov’t cannot”

Your point being???

“Thirdly, as mentioned before, many Catholic institutions self insure & hence are exempt from state mandates.”

True as that may be, there are also many Catholic institutions that aren’t self insured that are not exempt from state mandates. Obviously this legislation would affect them, not the institutions that you mentioned. So I’m afraid that this is irrelevant.

“Your personal opposition to a religious belief is much diffent from the government deciding which religious beliefs & activities qualify as sufficiently religious, IN THE GOV’T’S view to be constitutionally protected”

My personal opposition to a religious belief is irrelevant in regards to the first amendment. My point is if we accept that Catholic institutions should be exempt from covering contraception because they are religiously opposed to it, than it would be just as logical to exempt Jehovah Witness institutions from covering blood transfusions because they are also religiously opposed to it.

And, just the same, Nikolai should be exempt from paying taxes that go towards funding the war because he is religiously opposed to killing.

We need to be careful with what we exempt and why we exempt them. The First amendment has limitations, and I don’t find that requiring institutions to cover contraception is the same as forcing them accept that contraception is immoral.