Your Nov. 23 editorial “Church and State: The Courts Must Balance Health Care Rights” proposes equivalency of the Roman Catholic Church and Obamacare with regard to their “good works” or at least such aspirations. The second interesting argument is that the right of the church to hold its own religious beliefs needs to be balanced against those of the employees of church-affiliated organizations who are nonbelievers.
I beg to differ. With regard to the first issue, your comparison of an institution that has been successful in doing good for 2,000 years with a proposition that deprived hundreds of thousands of Americans of their insurance policies, offering them (at least these lucky few who managed to negotiate the website) less coverage at higher costs, is simply ridiculous.
With regard to the purported balance between the beliefs of the church and nonbeliever employees of related organizations, I am really puzzled why someone who strongly disagrees with the central concepts championed by the church would be compelled to work for such an institution.
All of us are free to join any church we like and seek employment wherever we wish. In contrast, Obamacare claims us all as its subjects under the pretense that it serves us, independently of our wishes. So much for the equivalency between the church and Obamacare.
Unless the Post-Gazette rejects such concepts as evolution (which applies to species and organizations alike) and experimental basis of argument and rational decision making, it should give the church (and all of us who prefer to make our own choices) some credit for at least being a successful charitable institution for over 20 centuries.
I do not expect the Post-Gazette to share my religious beliefs, but I would expect it to have respect for reason and common sense.