Illegal Aliens and Church Sanctuary Versus The HHS Birth Control Mandate

I noted with some interest an meeting of Baptists with the Obama Administration last week. One of the Pastors that was present is one I follow. See My White House meeting with Baptists (part 1) , Four things learned from my White House meeting (part 2) , TV interview about my White House meeting , and Three ways social media impacted my White House meeting .

In Pastor Rudnick's post Four things learned from my White House meeting (part 2) this link caught my eye
Baptists, White House Officials Discuss Policy Issues


Felicia Escobar, senior policy advisor for the Domestic Policy Council, brought the group's attention again to immigration issues.
Among the issues tweeters mentioned, she talked about efforts to improve the 'Green Card' process and the deportation efforts.
Asked about support for the sanctuary movement, Escobar responded that "[c]hurches are sacred places" and the Department of Homeland Security is stopping to pursue people in houses of worship.
Creech reported the group would be presenting Escobar with a copy of the new Common English Bible (which uses the word "immigrant" instead of "stranger" or "alien") and a copy of the "Gospel Without Borders" DVD, which was created by EthicsDaily.com.

Now that is interesting, and will be by jumping off point to discuss also the HHS birth control mandate. First it should be clear that there is really no Federal Law of Sanctuary. The Police can go in, and arrest people that have a probable cause of being engaged in criminal conduct. In this case being in this country illegally and other associated crimes.

The thing is the STATE on both the Federal and local level is hesitant to do this in practice. I submit it is because of the tradition of Sanctuary combined with a accommodation of religion in practice.

I have a feeling the Administrations view of staying the hand of homeland security is not based in any worries that by not doing so they would be violating the 1st amendment or the Religious Freedom Resotration act.

But what I was interested also was the language "sacred places" and" Houses of Worship". That seemed a tad limited.

So I tweeted the good pastor , and asked him the following question: Was he under the impression the Administration was just talking the 4 walls of the Church , or more broadly to schools. soup kitchens, shelters, and other social services. His response to me was BOTH.

Now that is interesting on many points. Again I highly doubt the administration is basing this on 1st amendment claims, or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act . Rather the good common sense that it is a good thing religion be accommodated. However this is based on lets say the goodwill of the Sovereign here. It could go away tomorrow.

Which leads us to the HHS Mandate problem. Out of the four walls of the Church it appears many Catholic social agencies and other institutions will not be exempt. The law is the law and everyone must follow it. The irony is the Church as to the HHS Mandate has a much stronger legal case under the Freedom of Religion of Restoration Act , than the Sanctuary Christians which involves matters of "criminal conduct" . At least that is my opinion. Not saying santuary Christians do not have a case at all , but I think it's more of a uphill climb.

In several States we have some Laws that are a huge concerns to Bishops and other Christians. That is making Christian assistance to illegal aliens crime!! The Church and others have raised these religious concerns both as to the individual and to the Church itself.

Alabama is the front line on that for a moment. A State which quite interesting has it's own version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. To see the various Church arguments and state counterarguments in their legal brief go this page.

It seems in the HHS mandate even some Catholic voices are saying that the rights of individual Catholics are no big deal. The Diocese is protected ,and that is all that matter. But again let's look at these various laws that could making giving "aid" to illegal aliens a crime. The State it seems to say hey trust us on this. We shall use discretion.

The Bishops, and others are very concerned as to the HHS Mandate precedents are being set where the State will play a more active role in declaring what is religious ,and what is not religious.

Currently in the States we have seen some reluctance to impose this anti immigration laws on the Church. For instance Catholics schools in Alabama do not have the same reporting requirement as Alabama public schools. I would contend this is because currently there is a respect for Accommodation and some quasi sovereignty to the Church.

What happens if the HHS Mandate is allowed to succeed? I would suggest it sets in part a new tone and a new precedent. Other political currents , even those opposed to the mandate, might use that in the future. I would suggest this issue of immigration is but just one where that ax might fall.

Last but not least the HHS mandate does seem to be latest imposition by the State on the Church that does not seem good for accommodation. In the States we have seen this as to adoption agencies in Illinois to activities of Catholic Charities in the District of Columbia.

The Planned Parenthood activist that thinks it's wrong for the Church not to provide Birth Control is very similar to anti illegal alien activist that would like the Catholic School raided to get the 12 years undocumented kid. There last concern is accommodation , or Religious rights but their agenda. A agenda that both can rally some amount of significant support around.

The question is as to the HHS mandate will heads that have a sense of the big picture prevail.