Financial expression

To the editor:

Freedom of religion is not just freedom of worship. It is also the freedom to express that religion. The most common way we have of expressing ourselves is how we spend our money. We vote up or down on businesses based on our patronage. We vote up or down on politicians with our donations. We vote up or down on the charities we support with our donations.

The HHS mandate is not about contraception; it is about freedom. When an entity, such as the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, is self-insured, the funds to provide that insurance come from its own coffers and all these funds are fungible. When the archdiocese insures the employees of a Catholic school that is not attached to a church but is freestanding, the funds come from those coffers. If the government should force the archdiocese to provide contraception as part of its health care package, then the monies are not coming from an outside, separately subsidized entity. It is forcing a religious organization to act in direct opposition to its conscience.

On the 1040 form we file for income taxes, there is a box that asks if we would like to contribute to the presidential campaign fund. What if this box were not an option? What if you want to donate to your politician of choice but, in order to do so, you must also provide equal funds for their opponent? That’s fair, isn’t it?