Religious Liberty A Counterpoint

To The Editor:
I wish to comment on the Feb. 29 opinion column “Religious Liberty 2012” concerning the belief that the government requirement for insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage is a form of religious persecution.
The writer expressed concern and questioned the current president’s use of the term “czar” as a means to demonstrate that he may not be responsive to the citizenry, which she stated worried here.
Perhaps she would be less worried if she knew that former President George W. Bush had appointed 33 “czar” titles, and that the term has been in continual use to describe government agency heads since the 1930s.
The writer attempted to make a point concerning governmental interference with religion by making reference to the Pilgrims coming to this county to escape persecution. Only the source of the Pilgrims’ persecution was not government per se, it was persecution emanating from religious rivalry, and at the time, religion controlled government. And then there’s the unpleasant fact that the Pilgrims practiced their own persecution against those who did not believe and worship as they did. The freedom of religion during their time was, “You’re free to believe as I do or else.”
The writer used as “silly examples” people being forced to do a variety of actions contrary to their religious beliefs. I feel I should point out that the examples are not relevant to her point. The examples she stated require someone being forced to an action, whereas the requirement to provide prescription contraceptives provides an option where was person can make their own decision.
So, if her argument is that people of religion are being forced to take contraceptives, that is not the case. If her argument is that if a religion doesn’t believe in contraceptives, others should not have access to them, then the persecution is by the people of that religion imposing their beliefs on others.
KENNETH HAMANN
Court House