And Be the Arbiter of What is Moral
The problem that some, not all but some religious people have with freedom of religion is that it lets people who do not share their religion the freedom to follow their own religion. Case in point, an opinion piece in the WSJ by a devout Catholic who bemoans the decision of the University of Notre Dame to allow is health insurance program to cover contraception.
The University of Notre Dame caved in. It will partly obey the Obama Care mandate requiring employer health-care plans to cover the cost of contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. Rejecting the Trump administration’s religious exemption, Notre Dame announced last month that it will provide “simple contraceptives” to students and employees through its insurance program.
So what's the problem. No one has to use contraception. See, that is what freedom is about. But for this author that is not enough. Because she is unable to persuade fellow Catholics to follow her personal beliefs, she wants to force them to do so by denying them access to contraception.
See using contraception makes one immoral.
Now we are not sure what any of this has to do with “moral opposition to a utilitarian sexual culture” as in almost everyone's view using contraception is not some moral failing. Well it is to the author who apparently does not understand the some couples wish to engage in sexual relations but do not wish to bring a child into the world. That such a view is morally offensive to the author says more about her character than it does about people engage in family planning.
There is a place for people who believe like the writer. No, it's not hell, it's Iran.