If you allow any exemptions to any law, somebody will
eventually attempt to use that exemption to their own benefit, regardless of
whether or not the exemption is actually appropriate. This is the origin of
cases where someone who isn’t a Native American has their house declared Tribal
land and starts a casino, people whose official residence is somewhere
off-shore to avoid paying taxes, and billionaires who receive Federal farm
assistance money every year because they own just enough agricultural property
to qualify. In a setting like this you’d have to be an idiot not to expect
anyone who can do so to try to game the system; the real question becomes at
what point is the requested exemption a reasonable interpretation of the law,
and at what point does it become fraud?
Consider the case brought by the Hobby Lobby organization in
Federal Appeals Court this past week to avoid having to pay for contraception
services for their employees on the grounds that it would violate the company’s
religious beliefs. The company points out that they use proceeds from their
for-profit business to support the efforts of their ministry, and that
therefore the entire organization can be seen as the support system for a
religious enterprise. The claim may seem absurd on the face of it, especially
since the company itself isn’t registered as a religious organization, and
therefore has no legal requirement to spend any amount of funds any specific activity.
But that’s exactly the problem: if we are going to allow exemptions for
churches, then can we deny them to religious schools? If we allow them for
religious schools, can we deny them to religious hospitals? How far from the
actual house of worship can we extend this type of religion-based exemption
before the whole question becomes absurd?
Even worse is the fact that while Hobby Lobby may appear to
be gaming the letter of the law, there is at least some possibility that they
are keeping to the spirit. Consider, for example, a company that really is run
according to Christian ethics – providing people with money and other support
on the basis of need, rather than the amount of work received in return, and so
on. This could still be a for-profit company – it could still make a profit
each year, in fact – but it would have a real chance of reaching people who
would never go to church, let alone listen to a sermon once they got there.
Such an enterprise could, at least in theory, adhere more closely to the
central beliefs of that faith than any conventional religious institution. If
it does so, how can we dismiss it as merely another business enterprise,
undeserving of any special consideration?
Which leads me to the question: Can we allow any organization
to have exemptions from a law that promotes the general health and welfare of
the entire population on the grounds of maintaining religious freedom to the
people involved with that organization? Can we allow any such exemptions, in
fact, knowing that a non-zero number of applications will be made by people and
organizations who have no reasonable justification for requesting them? Does
freedom of religion override the right of all people to have complete medical
care? And if it can only be said to do so in specific cases and for specific
organizations, where do we draw those lines, and who gets to draw it? Or should
we just have one set of rules for every organization and company and let the
fallout (holy or otherwise) fall where it may?
It’s worth thinking about…
No comments:
Post a Comment