The State Department released its annual International Religious Freedom Report last week, and Hillary Clinton made some remarks on the subject at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that same day. Clinton’s comments toed the standard line on the surface, but they are more interesting in light of the Obama administration’s recent decision regarding mandatory coverage of contraception, sterilizations, and abortifacients.
Clinton says, toward the beginning of her remarks, “For the United States, of course, religious freedom is a cherished constitutional value, a strategic national interest, and a foreign policy priority.” Clinton makes this point to argue that the United States complies with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which she cites: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
This phrasing—the right to “manifest his religion” in “practice,” “either alone or in community”—makes sense, as religion for millions of people extends beyond personal belief into practical action.
Clinton recognizes this fact in her remarks, where she says, “As part of our human rights dialogue with China, for example, we’ve taken Chinese officials on site visits to see how religious organizations in our country provide valuable social services. We organized a visit to a Catholic charity that provides help to people with intellectual disabilities, an organization that fights discrimination against Arab-Americans, and more.”
So Clinton sees that religion spurs social action. She even gives an example of an anonymous Catholic charity that helps “people with intellectual disabilities.”
But with the new mandate, what is the Obama administration forcing this Catholic organization to do, presumably? Pay for things that run against the Church’s official doctrine. The government is forcing this organization to pay for services that run against its teaching, preventing it from fully practicing its teachings. Obama’s “accommodation” is no solution to this attack on religious freedom, either—all Catholic organizations have to pay insurance companies that provide contraception for free, as we’ve noted before. And Catholics still are not happy. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a report in April (well after the rule was finalized) noting the government’s attack on religious freedom.
Clinton’s remarks live out this tension. She says, “Religious freedom is not just about religion. It’s not just about the right of Roman Catholics to organize a mass…Religious freedom is also about the right of people to think what they want, say what they think, and come together in fellowship without the state looking over their shoulder.” But does religious freedom mean the right to organize into socially beneficial institutions according to a religion’s doctrine, even if this doctrine contradicts a particular administration’s social agenda?
Obama and Clinton seem happy to look over the shoulders of the faithful here.
