Thomas Sowell in his book The Vision of the Anointed identified the common threat underlying the left wing’s “progressive” agenda as the belief that it is the duty–and right–of those who believe they have society’s best interests at heart to use coercive means to reform society, regardless of the objections of the less enlightened. I hypothesize that the subset of the Left who are militant atheists (and my guess is that most militant atheists–perhaps with the exception of Christopher Hitchens–are on that side of the political spectrum) believe that part of their duty to society is to immunize all children against the religious belief “meme”, and they see the increased government role in all transactions and services, including medical care, combined with the pernicious doctrine that the only way to avoid government “establishment of religion” is to suppress all religious expression and practice in activities touched by government regulation or funding, as the means to achieve that atheist Nirvana.

In other words, while secularizing all health care may be seen by many Progressives as perhaps an unfortunate, but Constitutionally required, side effect of government control of medical services, there are some among their number who see that secularizing “side effect” as being a high priority target in and of itself.

If that is the case, when we make our arguments against increased government intrusion in health care, and hope to dissuade or moderate its promoters through pointing out the negative effects on religious practice within health care institutions, there will be some in the target audience who will not be persuaded by that concern, but will actually be going off around the corner where they can shove their fists into the air and whisper “YES!”

Indeed, it is quite clear that one of the major reasons why education vouchers are opposed by many Progessives is that they allow more students to be exposed to religious belief in an educational context. Many critics of vouchers see such education as “tainted” by religion, with all sorts of vices like religious prejudice and discrimination, alleged inability to learn modern science, and clinging to traditional Biblical teachings on sexual morality.

The halls and gardens of this hospital has many reminders of its Catholic sponsors — crosses, pictures of Jesus, pictures of nuns, a statue of a monk, etc. I’m sure these are intended to remind the administrators of their mission and offer comfort to patients. I am not Catholic, but these symbols do not bother me in the slightest, and I feel the hospital has every right to display them. Thankfully, my health insurer could care less about the religious overtones of my provider.

But if we had nationalized health care where the government was essentially paying everyone’s medical bills, how long would it be before someone filed a law suit objecting to religious symbols? Would and could the government force Catholic hospitals to remove such symbols? Would it force Catholic health care providers to perform abortions? If so, would the Catholics get out of the health care business?

I see what’s has happened to public schools over the past 50 years and am concerned hospitals like St. Francis may be forced to follow.