Religion & American Law

If you have been keeping up with the news, there has been an uproar regarding President Obama and his new healthcare plan, more specifically the matter of contraceptives. Under President Obama’s healthcare laws, all employers are required to provide employees with preventive health coverage, including a range of birth control, which will come at no cost to the employee. As a result of this decision, as stated in this article, Obama has received much objection from the conservative Republicans and the Catholic bishops. The Catholic bishops feel as though they are forced to endorse a policy which is in violation of their moral opinions and teachings. In spite of urging from the Catholic Church and Conservative Republicans, President Obama has made his decision and opted not to broaden the exemption.
In conjunction with this, on Friday, in hopes of squelching the opposition, Obama has come up with a compromise that allows for an employer who morally objects to contraception to opt out and instead inform its female employees where they can get coverage outside of the employee health plan. Although the compromise does broaden the conscience clause to exempt any organization who opposes birth control based on religious beliefs, the Catholic bishops have already rejected the alternative because they don't even want women to be referred to places that would provide them with contraception. “The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.”
Here we have another classic case of an organization trying to have their values/beliefs imposed on people through government injunction. These churches want the government to keep their noses out of their belief systems, but they have no problem accepting the benefits that the government provides, from police protection to street repair to outright public funding of their "secular" works via the Faith Based grants. And what are they asked to do in return for all of these tax-free benefits and funding? Obey the law. The entire relationship between the tax-payers’ dollars and the church institutions needs to be re-evaluated. Why should tax payers be forced to fund an institution that will not follow the law when operating a business that serves the public like a hospital or university? Why shouldn’t a Catholic hospital be required to provide essential health services? Contraception is not merely used for birth control, it’s also used for a great deal of other health purposes, not to mention decreasing unintended pregnancies, which serves to reduce the number of abortions. A hospital is required to serve any person who needs medical care, not just those who agree with a particular religious belief system, i.e. the Catholic Church. Perhaps the bishops should get out of the health care business if they aren't willing to actually provide medical services.
In this way, any right of action based on belief cannot be absolute. Therefore, the right to practice a religion cannot mean that any individual or organization should be allowed to do whatever they want and justify it as their "sincere religious belief". There is nothing automatically sacred about action based on religious beliefs, no matter how sincere. It is clear in the Constitution that religious laws of God are separate from the Laws of Man. And that freedom to worship is on parity with the freedom not to.