Sister Caroline attends a rally with other supporters of religious freedom to praise the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby, contraception coverage requirement case on June 30 in Chicago. (Scott Olson,Getty Images)
Re: “Senate’s Hobby Lobby bill would limit faith,” Oct. 3 guest commentary.
Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila argues that revoking or overriding the Hobby Lobby ruling would limit faith.
On the eve of Yom Kippur (as I write this), and as a veteran singer of classical and choral music as well as a cantorial soloist, I see this as a one-sided view of religious power of those who hold the purse strings (employers) vs. those who don’t hold the purse strings (the job seekers). In this situation, the Supreme Court took the position of protecting the rights of those who hold the purse strings. If an employee or potential employee is of the same opinion as the employer, then fine. But if the potential employee is not of that opinion, then a decision is made to either stick to their religious principles or forgo their principles to find work and feed their family.
I am reminded of Felix Mendelsohn and Gustav Mahler, both of whom were classical composers originally of Jewish heritage who became Christian in order to find recognition of their work, and also to find work. Is history repeating itself in the United States for women who want female health issues covered by insurance?
Elliott Magalnick, Denver
This letter was published in the Oct. 15 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
