Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktChris, you are wrong when you say it is a violation of religious freedom for the Obama administration to require large employers of institutions with religious affiliations to provide insurance that covers contraception for employees. Churches, which are religious entities, are exempted. Universities and hospitals that serve the public and employ people of different religious backgrounds and beliefs should not have the right to deny such coverage to people who do not share the church’s institutional position. In my view, that is a larger violation of religious freedom. Beyond that, it violates the rights of employees to receive the same insurance that the law requires be available to other workers. And beyond that, it is a matter both of women’s rights and women’s health.
I have heard the argument that “liberal” Catholics who helped to pass the Affordable Care Act are incensed that their opposition to Secretary Sebelius’s decision was not respected. They apparently feel their support for ACA earned them policy chits in another area. Why? Presumably, they thought the act was a good idea and a step toward making insurance available to everyone. Did they feel their support was somehow contingent on the idea they would be able to veto the rights to contraception for women who want and need it?
I have long been troubled by the ease with which the church I was baptized in waves its wand over the most deeply personal of human choices. The sexual scandals within the church in recent decades have found clergy and religious throughout the church covering up the most terrible of crimes against children out of a desire to protect the church’s reputation and, I think, out of some sense of loyalty to people who have shared their vocations, in spite of their violations. I think that loyalty could not be more horribly mistaken, but on some level I almost understand it as an empathetic reaction.
It is deeply sad to me that people whose vows and chosen vocations have meant they have not faced real world decisions about child rearing, family size, maternal and infant health, and family financial pressures not only pass down edicts about what is right and wrong in terms of contraception but also show so little empathy for the people whose sexual choices are at variance from those edicts. I find it profoundly immoral that someone in the hierarchy may look the other way when a priest sodomizes a child and yet pound down an iron fist of opprobrium when a woman makes her own very personal choice about family planning. Your ire and sympathies are misplaced, Chris. There is no need to valorize the moral position of institutions (hospitals and universities are people?) over their workers who have a smaller voice but their own moral position and rights.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
[on my feet, applauding]
Well said, abc, well said, indeed.
LikeLike
abc (and, apparently, Mich):
Universities and hospitals that serve the public and employ people of different religious backgrounds and beliefs should not have the right to deny such coverage to people who do not share the church’s institutional position.
This makes it sound as though those who “do not share the church’s institutional position” are being somehow discriminated against, which is of course entirely untrue. No one receives coverage of birth control, regardless of whether they share the institutional position. Everyone is treated equally.
In my view, that is a larger violation of religious freedom.
You must have an extremely odd view of what freedom means generally, and what religious freedom means more particularly.
Freedom, in a political context, means the ability to act (or not act) in the absence of coercion. Religious freedom, particularly in the context of US history and our constitution, means the absence of laws interfering with the way that people observe their religious beliefs.
Nothing these institutions are doing or want to do with regard to providing insurance will have any impact whatsoever on the religious freedom of their employees. Nothing. Nor will it have any impact on their freedom more generally. They are still free to use birth control whenever they want.
On the other hand, what you want to do, ie use the law to force these institutions to do something they don’t want to do, is very clearly a violation of their freedom, at least as the term has historically been understood.
Beyond that, it violates the rights of employees to receive the same insurance that the law requires be available to other workers.
You sort of have a point here, but unfortunately you get the result exactly backwards. The law’s requirements are a violation of every organization’s freedom, not just religious institutions. Therefore, the correct remedy is to get rid of the law entirely, not restrict the freedom of religious institutions to amke everyone equally unfree.
Did they feel their support was somehow contingent on the idea they would be able to veto the rights to contraception for women who want and need it?
Again, you have a very odd understanding of what words mean. The right to contraception means an ability to use contraception in the absence of legal restrictions. These religious organizations are not placing, and have no ability to place, legal restrictions on the use of birth control. You are arguing against something that is quite simply not happening.
…but also show so little empathy for the people whose sexual choices are at variance from those edicts.
Again, it is a strange understanding of the notion to think that empathy requires one to provide others access to something which one thinks is morally wrong.
I find it profoundly immoral that someone in the hierarchy may look the other way when a priest sodomizes a child and yet pound down an iron fist of opprobrium when a woman makes her own very personal choice about family planning.
I think the immorality in looking the other way when a priest sodomizes a child is apparent all on its own, and is neither made more apparent due to an opposition to birth control nor would it be lessened by approval of birth control. In short, I find it bizarre that you have connected the two.
It also strikes me as extremely overwrought to speak of the church’s objections to the use of birth control as “an iron fist of opprobrium”. Given the ubiquitous use of birth control even amongst the the faithful, “wet noodle of opprobrium” would seem a much more appropriate metaphor.
It has humorously been said that Britain and America are two countries separated by a common language. The same idea seems to be true of you and I. You use words that seem familiar to me, but apparently mean something entirely different to you.
LikeLike
Scott – I agree that an employer who thinks birth control (bc) is immoral should not have to offer employees bc coverage. I agree that bc coverage should be available to anyone who wants it, for a price. I agree that it will be cheaper to provide bc as part of an insurance package paid for by a group than for individuals. I agree that the government, which is us, can demand the minimum essentials in a policy because that does not violate the BoR and insurance is about as interstate commercial a venture as there is.
Having agreed to conflicting positions, I must allow for conscience clauses for employers. Then I should allow for opt-ins for employees, perhaps at their own expense.
Not efficient, I think.
Ultimately, this leads me to pose another argument against employer centered health care. Separating the purchaser and user of the insurance creates the strain. I know jncp and bsimon both oppose employer centered, and I have in the past, b/c it is one of the reasons our manufacturers face more direct costs than Canada’s or mfrs in any of our competing advanced industrial nations. This is just another reason – perhaps relatively minor – to kiss employer-centered goodbye.
I most disagree with you when you say “The law’s requirements are a violation of every organization’s freedom, not just religious institutions.” All restrictive laws are subject to such a blanket charge, including entire penal codes. In other words, the limits to organizational freedom are posited by the society within the framework of the constitution and the law. We can argue that a particular limit is violative of anything from the constitution, to efficiency, to fairness, to common sense, but to argue simply that a law “violates…freedom” is at best a makeweight and at worst an attack on all law and order.
LikeLike
Mark:
…government, which is us…
I think this is true only in a largely meaningless, platitudinous sense. Government is a third-party agency which is populated with people that some of “us” periodically choose. Of the 536 currently elected members of the federal government, each of “us” has had a chance to have our voices heard in the selecting of less than 1% of them. I personally have had a hand in electing less than .20% of them. And even this ignores the plethora of people who exercise government power without even being elected. Government is not “us”.
I know jncp and bsimon both oppose employer centered
So do I. It is the bastard child of our tax laws.
All restrictive laws are subject to such a blanket charge, including entire penal codes.
Yes, they are, but relevant distinctions exist.
Here we get into the weeds of how a government dedicated to preserving individual freedom can possibly do so. It is a seeming paradox that to prevent the use of coercion, the use of coercion is necessary. The paradox is solved, however, by distinguishing between the initiation of coercion and retaliating against an instance of or the threat of initiated coercion. The latter increases freedom, and allows all men to enjoy freedom equally. The former diminishes freedom, and allows some men (those initiating the coercion) to enjoy more freedom than others (the subjects of the coercion). The penal code, laws against murder, theft, etc., is largely an example of the latter. Laws telling someone what they must provide to someone else is clearly an example of the former.
We can argue that a particular limit is violative of anything from the constitution, to efficiency, to fairness, to common sense, but to argue simply that a law “violates…freedom” is at best a makeweight and at worst an attack on all law and order.
I very much disagree. To believe so is to believe that the constitution and law in general is an end in itself. Which is most definitely not what the founders believed, and certainly not what I believe. Government and law exists for a purpose. To recognize this, and to recognize that some law, even perhaps law allowed by the constitution, not only does not achieve this purpose but in fact operates against achieving it, is neither a makeweight nor an attack on law as law.
LikeLike
To believe so is to believe that the constitution and law in general is an end in itself. Which is most definitely not what the founders believed, and certainly not what I believe. Government and law exists for a purpose.
Government and law exist for different purposes. Law is a means of social control. Not the only means, of course. Manners and customs, religion, social approbation, mores, and other constructs also provide means of social control, but the minimum standard we apply to all is “the law”. As a means of social control it most assuredly is open to the observation that it limits freedom, but that observation as a criticism is empty without further explication. You have attempted that further explication as follows:
The paradox is solved, however, by distinguishing between the initiation of coercion and retaliating against an instance of or the threat of initiated coercion. The latter increases freedom, and allows all men to enjoy freedom equally. The former diminishes freedom, and allows some men (those initiating the coercion) to enjoy more freedom than others (the subjects of the coercion). The penal code, laws against murder, theft, etc., is largely an example of the latter. Laws telling someone what they must provide to someone else is clearly an example of the former.
But your distinction is, in the end, wanting. Examples? The Uniform Commercial Code is built on the notion that fair trade practices that developed in England and America over centuries could be codified. Many parts of this code tell someone what he must provide to someone else. Laws against commercial deception tell what must be disclosed, merchant to consumer and merchant to merchant. Laws preventing deception in the sale of securities mandate what must be disclosed, at a minimum, in prospecti.
I think you are attempting to draw this distinction: a law that forces me to provide a good or service to another, as opposed to accurate information about the good or service I choose to provide, infringes on my freedom even if I am compensated for it.
To which I would reply, “sometimes”.
LikeLike
Mark:
I think you are attempting to draw this distinction…
Not quite. I was just using “coercion” as shorthand for “force or fraud”. I should have been more clear.
To which I would reply, “sometimes”.
To which I would reply, is it possible to know when without asking you?
LikeLike
Scott, in general you would not have to ask me. There will be specific cases in which you would want to hire a lawyer, but I would not begrudge your hiring QB.
Here is a postulate which for me is a working assumption. I subscribe to the notion that government cannot take my life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The rules for due process are different for each category, as the government cannot take my life by paying cash for it but it can take my real estate by paying cash for it.
It becomes a difficult conundrum on many occasions, especially when the state’s need is perceived to override the individual right. For example, I thought Kelo was a disaster. Looking back, the 19th century RR cases followed by the 20th century urban renewal cases led to Kelo. When did we go too far? The RR cases? The urban renewal cases? That we have gone too far in favor of finding government interest paramount seems pretty clear to me now. Take the draft. Not only is one conscripted, but one is then undercompensated. But the national government has the right to raise a military force. Tricky.
I agree with you that there are specific problems with the current issue, and I think a conscience clause may well have to apply at least to Catholic schools and organizations. I think it should. I would argue that from previous authority. I could be paid to argue more broadly against mandating anyone to buy health insurance for anyone else or for oneself. I do not predict I would win, in the end, because of the breadth of the Commerce power and the nearly 200 year old precedent concerning who determines what is Necessary and Proper. Besides, the likelihood would be that if I won, the next time there was a D majority in both houses we would get Medicare for all, like Canada has; thus something I do not want would become a done deal, because I did not settle for maintaining a private insurance scheme by making it mandatory.
But I think the latter is a close call, because of competing considerations we hold dear, and there is an old saying about close cases.
LikeLike
Mark:
Here is a postulate which for me is a working assumption. I subscribe to the notion that government cannot take my life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
It seems to me you are focusing on second order decisions without considering first order decisions. Again, law is not an end in itself. So the notion that is of first order interest to me is not what government can or cannot do, or when it can or cannot do it, but rather what government should do, and when it should do it. Only this can inform our decision of what we want government to be able to do, and our judgment of whether what government is doing is ultimately acceptable. Put another way, can only judge that Kelo goes “too far” if we have a standard outside of what government “can” do, because manifestly the government “can” do what it did in “Kelo”.
BTW, I understand the need to make political concessions in order to avoid even worse outcomes. But when such concessions are made we should be clear that they are strategic concessions to political reality and not sensible policy.
LikeLike
So the notion that is of first order interest to me is not what government can or cannot do, or when it can or cannot do it, but rather what government should do
I simply disagree about the order of priority. We should always argue what government should or should not do, of course. But you are falling into the classic trap that allows for arguing that government should do what it must not or should not do what its fundamental document tasks it with doing. This is what QB derides about the Prop 8 decision. It was made, he says, b/c it was what 2/3 of the judges thought ought to happen, not b/c it was a [properly] permitted constitutional result.
BTW, I think the “no rational basis” attack will fail in the Supremes, and that the dissent has this right, even though I think Prop 8 had no rational purpose in common parlance! In the context of separation of powers, all the lege/or prop needs is the flimsiest rationale, which I do think they have here. I am also not predisposed to treat marriage as a federal issue, unless a state statute discriminates on race, religion, or national origin [strict scrutiny rules].
What I do not think is worthy of debate is what God intended, however, or what is “natural law”.
LikeLike
Mark:
I simply disagree about the order of priority.
Then on what grounds might one ever find it necessary to amend the constitution? It seems to me that amendments to the constitution properly come about when people realize or decide that it either doesn’t allow the government to do what it ought to do, or it does allow the government to do what it ought not do. In either case, what government ought to do is a consideration that must come prior to considerations of what the constitution allows. Indeed, the constitution itself is, and could only be, the end product of precisely such considerations. It didn’t spring forth out of a vacuum.
If I say that the government ought not be doing X, it is no counter to my position to claim that, well, the constitution says it can do it. If it were, then the answer to any question about why a given policy is being implemented would be simply repeating the old joke: Why does a dog lick his balls?
BTW, mine is not in the slightest an argument for judges to rule as they think they “ought” to, a la prop 8. Mine is an argument about law making, and of course judges are not in the law making business. (Isn’t that right?) Judges are most definitely not the arbiters of what government ought to do. They are specifically the arbiters of what government can do. The responsibility for prioritizing what government ought to do belongs first to citizens, and then to legislators. Not judges.
LikeLike
Then on what grounds might one ever find it necessary to amend the constitution? It seems to me that amendments to the constitution properly come about when people realize or decide that it either doesn’t allow the government to do what it ought to do, or it does allow the government to do what it ought not do.
Excellent, Scott. I agree. I think it is the exception that proves the rule, an exception that takes into account lessons of history. But I agree with the thrust: amendments must be permitted. There are “shoulds” and “should nots” outside the “musts” and “must nots”.
A side note on legislation for which I solicit a comment from QB and Ashot as well. I recall that when I took “legislation” as a course in 1966 or ’67 one example, of many, in a semester of discussion, was the outlawing of the sale of wire hangers. Suppose the wire hanger mfr argues in court that he is being put out of business for no reason other than that the wood hanger mfrs have bought the lege. My recollection was that we decided that would be a valid no rational basis argument, if supported by the legislative history. But if the legislative history had stated that because dozens of women had permanently injured or killed themselves trying abortions with wire hangers, and it was a public safety measure to ban their sale in the state, that would suffice. Does this sound right? It is a dim recollection of a discussion that came to me as I hung my sweater.
LikeLike
Mark,
I don’t recall discussing a similar hypo exactly, but the thought sounds about right. We all were taught that rational basis is an extremely low standard, and that if it applied it was for all intents and purposes the end of almost any case. You almost have to conjure up laws nutty enough not to pass. Your hypo, though, sounds more like a question of whether there was a legitimate government purpose rather than a rational relationship to it.
I once litigated a tax EP case up to a state supreme court, to everyone’s surprise winning in the intermediate court under a rational basis test. The purpose of the tax was essentially, we want to raise money by taxing parking spaces at this particular business. Why only this business? Because it has a lot of parking spaces. But other businesses have parking, too? Yes, but we don’t want to tax the others, only this one. Why? Because it is bigger, or is easier for us to tax just this one, or something (and, silently, it can’t go anywhere else). That was good enough for the supreme court, at least after an intervening SCOTUS decision.
I have a rather radical (relative to prevailing “constitutional law”) view of all this. I think the application of rational basis analysis, intermediate scrutiny, etc., has no basis in the Constitution at all. Issues like those here are intractable as constitutional issues because they aren’t really constitutional issues at all. We know the EP was enacted to prohibit unequal treatment based on race. The rest is made up, imo. Same with substantive due process. Made up. I don’t believe SCOTUS has any authority to review laws for how reasonable or good they think they are, and I think that is all this adds up to–nothing to do with the Constitution.
But I do want to read the new book out about substantive due process and see whether it changes my mind (can’t recall the author) (yeah, like this will happen any time soon).
LikeLike
Good war story and illustration, QB.
I am home sick with flu but did just manage to edit a consulting agreement where the thinking was done previously, when I was not in a fog.
I am recalling that we also considered commerce clause as opposed to police power issues with the wire clothes hangers example.
Ashot – it really does take almost nothing to make a rational basis, or courts would be mucking with much more legislation than they do.
QB – The late Charles Clark once told me from the 5th Circuit bench that the 13th-15th Amends. did not apply to Mexican-Americans.
I suggested to him almost what Scott said the other day about “A is A”. The 13th freed the slaves, but it also meant that no one could be a slave, or it would not have freed them, and the words would have been empty of effect. The 14th gave the former slaves full citizenship, which would have no meaning if we did not define the rights of all full citizens as =. He was polite, and in the minority on the panel, but I am sure he remained unconvinced, because he voted against me in a dissent without opinion.
LikeLike
ABC, lovely to see you here. While I disagree with Chris Matthews that the law is a violation of religious freedom as the term is generally understood, I’m not at all persuaded that the federal government needs to be in the business of micromanaging what kind of insurance policies companies can provide to their employees (or must), and what those policies may or may not provide in the way of services. If there is an iron fist here (and, admittedly, it looks lovely in that velvet glove), I think it’s the federal government’s.
The Catholic church’s opinion on birth control is wholly irrelevant to my objection, btw.
LikeLike
Kevin, I think one of the good things to come out of the sausage grinder that is the ACA is the concept of a group of items that are the minimum for insurance coverage. As far as I can tell, while there are a certain percentage of people who disagree with that in its entirety, the bigger kicker is that birth control was included. At least, that’s my impression so far.
LikeLike
“I think one of the good things to come out of the sausage grinder that is the ACA is the concept of a group of items that are the minimum for insurance coverage.”
I actually think this is one of the worst aspects of the law.
“There is no need to valorize the moral position of institutions (hospitals and universities are people?) over their workers who have a smaller voice but their own moral position and rights.”
Either religious freedom means something in this country or it doesn’t. And the Obama administration is saying “save it for Sunday you backward-ass morons.”
You can make the case that government has a role to play in preventing action that can be deemed harmful, but here they are compelling action. And it should sicken every single one of us. to me, this is no different than mandating by law that Sandy Koufax pitch on the sabbath. government is saying we acknowledge your objection but don’t give a damn.
LikeLike
NoVAH, why are minimum essentials in a policy a bad mandate from ACA? Have you already explained this? If so, can you point me to it? In a vacuum of ignorance, it seems to be a shoppers’ handy tool.
LikeLike
nova:
but here they are compelling action. And it should sicken every single one of us.
I wholeheartedly agree. The fact that some people not only accept this, but demand it in tones of righteous indignation as if it is required as a matter of justice, makes it even more depressing.
LikeLike
I actually think this is one of the worst aspects of the law.
I knew that, NoVA, but then I also think that we should have gone with either a nationalized plan or single payer, which I’m pretty sure you also don’t like. 🙂
LikeLike
yeah, that’s true.
LikeLike
That’s just my ideology poking through. I want to be able to shop for a plan that covers what I want to cover at the levels I deem appropriate. But I’m after an insurance product that doesn’t really exist.
Also: Adding what’s “essential” is likely to be an area of work for me over the next couple of years.
LikeLike
The argument that the law should compel a religiously affiliated employer to violate its religious tenets in order to satisfy the demands of employees who reject those tenets is an entirely inverted notion of religious freedom.
The employer’s position in no way even implicates the employee’s freedom of religion. It is the advocates of compulsory coverage who are advocating an abridgement. It isn’t even a close question.
Aside from this, I’m not Catholic, but I am ever amazed at the arguments of Catholics who reject the church’s teachings and contend that their own freedom is somehow impaired by the church. I would not be loyal to a church I felt was so immoral and corrupt.
LikeLike
The hidden agenda is to undermine ACA at any opportunity and hardline Catholics like Matthews are being used as dupes in creating a wedge issue.
LikeLike
QB = Martin Luther Incarnate?
LikeLike
“as if it is required as a matter of justice, makes it even more depressing.”
I think that’s the logical endpoint if you consider health care a right. This is another in a long line of the positive v. negative debates. in this case, it’s the politics of religion and sex, so we’ve hit the holy trinity.
LikeLike
First I’d like to thank ABC for putting up her first post at our new site, and boy it was a doozy and timely considering it’s the subject of much commentary across the internet and broadcast news. President Obama is taking a lot of heat for apparently taking on the Catholic Church, from Chris Matthews to USA Today. I expect a compromise is in the works. I’m neither a Catholic nor a huge supporter of the ACA and I also agree with others that employer provided health insurance has really distorted the market and has actually made it more difficult to transition from a one size fits all to an individual market, if that’s your goal. It has also made it nearly impossible to reform in order to benefit those of us left out of the employer benefits of coverage.
I had a funny thought this morning. What if the Church offered two different plans, one that covers BC at a higher premium and one that doesn’t. I wonder what percentage of Catholic employees would choose the one that covers BC?
LikeLike
QB = Martin Luther Incarnate?
; ) Except I’m not Catholic. I am always conscious that this kind of observation might give offense, but it is something that truly puzzles me. I would suppose it is part of human psychology to maintain a kind of “loyal dissent” position for someone born and bred Catholic, but to my eyes it seems to give rise to a pattern of argument about the church and its relation to individuals and government that just makes no logical sense.
It reminds me a little of a particular argument in Christian apologetics and evangelism (with which I happen to agree) aimed at people who claim that Jesus was a good man, a moral teacher, a prophet, a model of righteousness, etc., but deny his divinity. The argument is simply: if you accept all these things about Jesus, then you should accept that he is God, because he said that he was and is. So either he is God or he is a liar and not what you said he is.
To my ears, I hear dissenting Catholics acknowledging at some level the authority of their church but denying the truth and validity of its teachings. For some reason, these arguments always get raised in political contexts. Here, for example, it seems that dissenting Catholics want to use the government to compel the church to violate its own teachings, because they disagree with them, even while claiming some level of alleigance, and “feel” like their own civil liberties are being infringed, by the church no less. I can scarcely conceive of a line of reasoning that seems more convoluted to me.
LikeLike
qb:
I can scarcely conceive of a line of reasoning that seems more convoluted to me.
How about this: As a born, bred and loyal Catholic (catholic high school, catholic university), but one who now recognizes the folly in the notion of the existence of God, I am appalled at the hubris of the church hierarchy, insisting on preaching week in and week out about the existence of God and, perhaps more significantly, his magical “son” Jesus. I want to be able to enjoy going to Sunday mass without being propagandized about God and Jesus. They are violating my freedom to worship as I see fit! And what about the poor youngsters who are being brainwashed, particularly those who go to Catholic school and are forced, forced!, to attend services and classes that are pushing this deranged belief in God during the school day. Something must be done! We need a law to prevent this obvious violation of religious freedom.
Such a line of reasoning is probably more convoluted than what you highlight. But only just.
LikeLike
Employer based coverage is the real stumbling point here. Insurance (if not single payer) should be completely portable.
LikeLike
this is where jnc4p posts a link to wyden-bennet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act
LikeLike
Only Wyden has gone off the reservation and semi-endorsed Paul Ryan’s terrible ideas.
LikeLike
yello–OT. I’ve heard you use the term “cafeteria Catholic”; what does that mean? Thanks!
LikeLike
““cafeteria Catholic”
you pick and choose what part of the doctrine to follow and leave the rest
LikeLike
A cafeteria Catholic is one who picks and chooses which doctrines of the Catholic Church one is going to follow like choosing a meal at a cafeteria. Nearly by definition, all Catholics who use birth control are. Since the Catholic Church is a very large and diverse organization, in practice all Catholics are one to some degree or other. You rarely find the anti-abortion protesters in the same committee meetings as the ones running the anti-death penalty vigils.
Having doctrinal disputes with the current rules is rather common. Lots and lots of Catholics think priests should be allowed to marry (Some including myself see the celibate clergy as the root cause of the child abuse scandals). Others think women should be ordained. There is a lot of evidence the former will happen before the latter.
I have known people who are very devoted to the social justice causes while still maintaining a strong right-to-life posture. In fact, Church teachings are remarkably internally self-consistent. Having two millennia to hone ideology and having some of the greatest philosophers ever as believers helps with that.
The closest probable analog to cafeteria Catholics are non-observant Jews. They don’t practice the faith, but the customs and traditions pervade their lifestyle. I haven’t been to a church service in several years, yet I still observe dietary restrictions during Lent. Go figure.
LikeLike
Corked.
LikeLike
Great discussion. I was baptized Catholic, raised in an Evangelical Church and now attend mass every Sunday. Needless to say, this background makes some of these issues hard to deal with.
I hear dissenting Catholics acknowledging at some level the authority of their church but denying the truth and validity of its teachings.
I’m not sure I acknowledge the authority of the Church in the way you seem to be using the term. In my mind the only authority is God. Having grown up in a denomination that did not have a hierarchy like the Catholic Church, I was taught I only answer to God. I don’t know if that means I’m only a Catholic in name or what.
For some reason, these arguments always get raised in political contexts.
I think you are overstating your case here. Many Catholics disagree with the moral teachings of the Church on issues such as birth control and abortion. You hear about them because there is a political context as well. For instance, I am guessing some Catholics deny the truth and validity of transubstantiation which does not have a political context. You simply don’t hear about it because it has no impact on anybody else. There is obviously considerable disagreement at a moral level with how the Church handled the molestation issue. I know you aren’t saying that this argument arises only in the political context, but I think you are overlooking some additional internal turmoil within the Catholic Church.
The argument is simply: if you accept all these things about Jesus, then you should accept that he is God, because he said that he was and is. So either he is God or he is a liar and not what you said he is.
I’ll never forget reading Mere Christianity where CS Lewis goes beyond saying you either accept that Jesus is God or he is a liar. He says he either accept Jesus as God or you have to acknowledge he was a total nutcase that would be in a psychiatric hospital on some heavy meds were he to be walking around today claimng to be the son of God. I’ve never heard a good response to that.
LikeLike
my fault — she asked you and I interrupted. I’m sorry.
LikeLike
“I am guessing some Catholics deny the truth and validity of transubstantiation which does not have a political context. ”
Not to put to fine a point on it, but that means they belong in the Anglican/Episcopal church. To me, that’s the most beautiful part of the Mass . And if you don’t believe that, that’s fine, but I don’t understand why you’d continue to go.
LikeLike
No harm, no foul. Assuming I would reply is not a given. I just expanded on your answer.
LikeLike
And improved upon — i think your point about it being more of a cultural/tradition thing is spot on.
LikeLike
In Mark, Jesus repeatedly referred to himself as “the Son of Man” – the literal Aramaic-Greek-English translation – but it just means “mortal”. The synoptic gospels stress Jesus’ humanity. They are very much within their Jewish tradition. Mark, the earliest, most notably.
John, written 90 years after Jesus’ death, is utterly different. It and Revelations are essentially Gnostic Egyptian books written for and by gentile converts as opposed to messianic Jews. John stresses Jesus’ divinity.
Jesuits write about this stuff and often are accused of being cafeteria Catholics, btw.
LikeLike
Jesuits collectively are probably the smartest people on Earth. Franciscans, the kindest.
LikeLike
I find transubstantiation to be the most Biblically defensible of dogmas which are uniquely Catholic. The perpetual virginity of Mary, the least plausible.
LikeLike
“novahockey, on February 8, 2012 at 8:36 am said
this is where jnc4p posts a link to wyden-bennet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_Americans_Act”
Thanks for covering for me. And yes, the root of the problem is employer provided health insurance. Get rid of that and you solve the coercion problem and a bunch of others.
“yellojkt, on February 8, 2012 at 8:46 am said:
Only Wyden has gone off the reservation and semi-endorsed Paul Ryan’s terrible ideas”
Nope, he’s just taken them one step further and applied them to Medicare in an effort to forge a compromise. What you need to realize is that Wyden views his market based proposals as superior to single payer, not as the best he can do because he can’t get to single payer. He’s been completely consistent.
The problem with Ryan’s approach is you can’t reform Medicare in isolation from the rest of the system. It needs to be rolled into an exchange type system where individuals pick their own insurance and nothing changes when you hit 65. You just keep what you already have, just like home owners and auto insurance.
LikeLike
May I broaden this conversation a bit, while still sticking to the themes of the relationship between secular laws and practices and Church Dogma. Actually just a couple of questions.
I heard Joe Scarborough in his holy outrage drag in “separation of church and state” during this discussion of Catholic beliefs, at least beliefs shared by the church hierarchy but less than 10% of the actual membership of the church. I simply do not understand that canard…there are many things concerning church and state that are not only not separate but closely intertwined. We call this state all manner of names but many of them are not very accurate…we say this is a “Christian nation”. Is it? 75% self identify as Christians. The Founding Fathers? A mixed bag eh? We say we believe in separation of church and state….really?
Why does the Catholic Church pay no property taxes on St. Patrick’s Cathedral which occupies one of the priciest blocks of real estate in our nation? Is that not the Government, at least at City, County, and State levels, subsidizing the Catholic Church? In some people’s minds…might they be paying more tax dollars into things like funding their school systems, fire and police protection, than they would if that block occupied by St. Patrick’s was actually paying normal taxes?
Now obviously I’m not trying to pick on the Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic..8 years of elementary school with the nuns and I still have plenty of friends and family who remain Catholic; My point about subsidizing churches is genuine. I’m truly curious as to why this is legal? And not just the Catholics…the other religions also tie up some of the best urban land in this nation and in effect remove it from the tax roles. Why?
And it does have real world consequences. Clearwater Florida has been taken over by the Scientologists. They’ve done it legally, and they are a church, so they have plenty of downtown property exempted from taxation.
The church paid property taxes of $605,488 last year, making it downtown’s largest taxpayer, even with about two-thirds of its holdings tax exempt. Church property used for religious purposes, such as counseling, is tax exempt. Properties or portions of properties not used for religious purposes, such as restaurants and hotel rooms, are taxed.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/18/Tampabay/Scientology_s_town.shtml
Separation of church and state? Puhleeze! They are so intertwined in our nation as to perhaps best be described as inextricably so.
LikeLike
All charities can get tax exemptions, not just religious ones, RUK. Your argument may devolve to intertwining of government and NGOs.
LikeLike
I said essentially what I wanted to say. If it makes anyone feel better or worse, I’m no longer a Catholic due to bafflement at the teachings and the hierarchy. I’ll add a few short points in spite of myself:
1. While there are issues with the ACA and the whole notion of employer funding of insurance, ACA is the law of the land and I don’t feel institutions that are essentially public should be excused from its provisions.
2. Whose conscience is being violated if a hospital with a Catholic affiliation provides standard insurance coverage that the insured make individual choices about using? The bishop in the diocese where the hospital is located? The hospital board? Its CEO? Members of the business office that negotiate the contract who themselves may use birth control? I resist the idea that some collective institutional self with a “teaching” should trump the rights of individual workers to have equal access to healthcare.
3. I intentionally linked the reaction of the hierarchy to priests who abuse children and to women who use contraceptives because of the deep irony—a great sin often airbrushed while a non-sin is ranted about. And Scott, you are right that we speak two different languages.
LikeLike
abc:
…should trump the rights of individual workers to have equal access to healthcare.
Again, a complete misuse of terms and misrepresentation of what is actually happening. Access to health care is not being “trumped” or denied simply because one person or organization is not willing to pay for another person to get it. Birth control is still available and accessible to anyone who wants it. If nothing else, all they have to do is go to Planned Parenthood to get it.
What you are claiming Just. Isn’t. True.
LikeLike
“while a non-sin is ranted about” — do you mean coverage of BC?
LikeLike
It would seem that we are comfortable with different sort of mandates. Other types of insurance have associated mandates with them. Construction codes. Etc. One cannot also shout “religious freedom” and expect all opposing arguments to be vanquished. [Note: that’s not how I would characterize these discussions.] Just ask indigenous Americans who wish to use peyote as part of their ceremonies.
The argument cannot simply be should there be a religious exemption, but rather how extensive it can be. I don’t think I’d like to have the Christian Scientist health plan. Not all take such matters to the extreme, but let’s assume an employer had a religious objection to surgery as a violation of the body. Have fun carving out that exemption.
Much of the rhetoric is overblown. The likely endgame is plans with optional whoopee insurance that is not paid by the employer. It is equally an infringement on the religious liberties of the employee to prohibit them from obtaining such coverage. It’s actually quite a cost saver to the insurance company as the cost of pregnancy to term is quite a bit larger than the contraceptives. The single greatest charge we have to United Healthcare would be from the double Caesarian of my twins and associated hospital stay.
Ultimately, I would love for the link between the employer and employee as regards health insurance to be broken. In an exchange, there could be plans without contraceptive coverage as well as plans with a whoopee supplement.
BB
LikeLike
Well, here we go into theology and talking about doctrines of churches other than our own. What could possibly go wrong?
I’m not sure I acknowledge the authority of the Church in the way you seem to be using the term.
Fair enough, ashot. Absent intense study, I doubt any lowly Protestant like me really understands the issue of church authority all that well. We just overhear what we overhear. I only know that Catholic doctrine confers upon the Catholic Church a status and authority different from those of Protestants. We don’t have notions of infallibility or of being the one true and universal church. That’s all I was invoking.
I think you are overstating your case here. Many Catholics disagree with the moral teachings of the Church on issues such as birth control and abortion. You hear about them because there is a political context as well.
Also fair enough. Perhaps my phrasing was imprecise. I meant to say these issues often come up in political contexts and “rights” arguments, not that they only come up there.
I’ll never forget reading Mere Christianity where CS Lewis goes beyond saying you either accept that Jesus is God or he is a liar.
I had actually forgotten this was Lewis. The old noggin has some rust in it. But yes it is made in strong terms, and if you read the Gospels it is hard not to say it is a good argument. Crazy or God. The Muslim answer to this is that the Gospels had all that God stuff inserted later (no evidence, of course). Very convenient.
LikeLike
Scott,
Indeed, that is a rather far-fetched argument. Unfortunately, it is not far from some I’ve actually heard, and you probably have as well.
Mark,
I demur on the issue of what Jesus said in which Gospels etc. There are plenty of books and theological explorations of it. I did find this interesting discussion on what I think is an Evangelical website.
http://y-jesus.com/jesus_believe_god_1.php
Separately, I have to think about your statement to Scott re my criticism of the Perry decision. Not sure I am following right now, but I am multi-tasking, so that is my excuse.
LikeLike
You guys are having a fascinating discussion here; thanks to both NoVA and yello for answering my question–I suspected it was something along those lines. I suspect we’re all cafeteria whatevers to a large extent.
I’m also trying to envision this conversation taking place over at PL. . . the mind boggles!
Back to work for me.
LikeLike
This level of conversation is rare, period.
We have collected a bright group of competent and self assured people with widely divergent views, who are not free associating without knowledge. We could not have done this at PL, if we had tried.
Considering that this is not a professional blog, like Volokh, where everyone is talking the same subset of knowledge, we do well, especially when we carefully define terms.
I also enjoy the level of honesty and general acceptance. Great thread.
LikeLike
I don’t feel institutions that are essentially public should be excused from its provisions
I suspect that “essentially public” is a term containing many problems.
I resist the idea that some collective institutional self with a “teaching” should trump the rights of individual workers to have equal access to healthcare.
I would resist the idea that people can’t organize themselves and their activities into institutions committed to basic beliefs and principles. But as or more importantly I would observe again that the entire problem flows from a government overreaching its proper (and constitutional) function. Setting aside the 1st Amendment issues, here is an interesting little piece by two law professers (further) skewering (bonus PL points for me) the notion that the Commerce Clause authorizes the many tentacles of the moder federal leviathan.
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/commerce-in-the-commerce-clause-a-response-to-jack-balkin
I intentionally linked the reaction of the hierarchy to priests who abuse children and to women who use contraceptives because of the deep irony—a great sin often airbrushed while a non-sin is ranted about.
It seems to me that the link breaks on the fact that in one case the church is lodging a complaint that the government is purporting to force it to violate its own teachings. One can legitimately criticize the church’s handling of pedophilia, but it really has nothing to do with any of this. That is a complaint about how the church handled sinful (and criminal) conduct, not that the church didn’t complain about another instance of government compulsion.
LikeLike
I think it’s easy to overlook the deeply held conviction that this issue raises. Its such a throwback and easy to dismiss in a modern world. really, who’s against BC?
Anecdotally, this is just breaking the heart of a friend of the family who is 1) devout* (the antithesis of a cafeteria catholic) and 2) a nurse. she’ll quit before she gets involved with something like this. and it would be a huge loss, b/c you’ll be hard pressed to find someone as devoted to her patients and their well being.
*daily mass. evening prayers, faith that is both inspirational and off-putting
I was in car accident a few years ago. I found her sprinkling holy water on our new car, becuase she’s was going to make sure we were protected.
LikeLike
Good one scott, linking to PP for birth control. I think some people believe, and rightly so in many cases, that lack of access to insurance coverage either entirely or in part, is a denial of health care. While it may not be technically accurate, it is somewhat generically true.
The discussion has been interesting as always. I’m not sure the Catholic Church’s objection really holds water for me, as it’s merely a compliance issue with ACA, and they already received their waiver for the Church itself. As a non-Catholic I must be missing something. I’m always amazed when birth control becomes a contentious issue.
LikeLike
I found her sprinkling holy water on our new car, becuase she’s was going to make sure we were protected.
Better safe than sorry I guess.
LikeLike
Not only not a professional blog but a blog of a bunch of people who are supposedly working at their real jobs. ; )
Mark, I want to go read Volokh on Perry but just don’t have the time. I also want to write about it and in particular questions of justiciability and judicial process. I need three of me.
LikeLike
Scott,
Should we still be ignoring Santorum? As an extension to that, should we still not worry about his comments regarding states banning birth control?
LikeLike
ashot:
Should we still be ignoring Santorum?
Yes.
As an extension to that, should we still not worry about his comments regarding states banning birth control?
Most definitely, no worries.
LikeLike
“hey already received their waiver for the Church itself”
The Church doesn’t view its hospitals as separate from its parishes. To devout catholic ears, the Obama administration might have said “you can’t use wine at Mass”
LikeLike
Nova, historical question here–was there a religious exemption for Prohibition?
LikeLike
abc:
Nova, historical question here–was there a religious exemption for Prohibition?
Funnily enough, I just watched Ken Burns’ prohibition series over the weekend. An excellent series that everyone should watch.
LikeLike
To devout catholic ears, the Obama administration might have said “you can’t use wine at Mass”
Did we have a similar discussion a while back at PL or am I just imagining that?
Anyway, most of my work is for Catholic hospitals and health systems and there is definitely a stronger connection than people realize between the hospitals and the Church.
LikeLike
Yep — there was an exemption in the Volstead Act for religious use. IIRC, docs could prescribe whiskey too.
LikeLike
ash, I don’t recall. but that doesn’t mean we didn’t.
LikeLike
I love that during Prohibition you could buy what were essentially beer-making kits with explicit warnings for what not to do with the ingredients, else you would violate the Volstead Act.
Too funny. A great country.
LikeLike
qb:
I love that during Prohibition you could buy what were essentially beer-making kits with explicit warnings for what not to do with the ingredients, else you would violate the Volstead Act.
Yes, that was very amusing.
How about how some pub owners got around early dry state restrictions on the sale of alcohol…come buy a plate of crackers and we’ll give you a free beer.
LikeLike
reason’s take — and the key point: “First, that any health-care reform which doesn’t de-link insurance from the workplace is really not serious in transforming a system that everyone seems to hate but won’t fully jettison.”
http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/08/has-obama-declared-war-on-religion-by-in
LikeLike
The Church doesn’t view its hospitals as separate from its parishes.
Okay, I can see that. So this is a bridge too far for most Catholics, or at least the Church hierarchy, in dictating what they will and will not cover. My mind automatically thinks, well they’re not forcing anyone to use BC, so what’s the big deal? It’s simply a matter of providing what some consider a fairly standard benefit that by most accounts even the majority of Catholics use. Like I said earlier, I imagine we’ll see either a compromise or a walk back, as the decibel level is really out there. It took the heat off of SGK temporarily anyway.
LikeLike
We all were taught that rational basis is an extremely low standard, and that if it applied it was for all intents and purposes the end of almost any case.
Yep, that’s what I recall, too.
Why? Because it is bigger, or is easier for us to tax just this one, or something (and, silently, it can’t go anywhere else). That was good enough for the supreme court, at least after an intervening SCOTUS decision.
Wow. I have done exactly zero Constitutional law, but never realized that rational basis was really any basis.
have a rather radical (relative to prevailing “constitutional law”) view of all this. I think the application of rational basis analysis, intermediate scrutiny, etc., has no basis in the Constitution at all.
qb with a radical view? Well I never. So the ballot box would be the only recourse? That would certainly clear up the court dockets. Maybe I could get a ruling on my SJ motion that the court has had for over a year.
LikeLike
NoVA, who exactly is lobbying to keep insurance and the workplace linked?
LikeLike
“well they’re not forcing anyone to use BC, so what’s the big deal?”
the sin of scandal. they would be facilitating sin in others.
LikeLike
Beer brewing was supposedly illegal when I lived in Utah. That’s also when I picked up my supplies for brewing on one of the main streets in Salt Lake City. The rule back then was you could only buy beer stronger than 3.2% at a state liquor shop. And it was priced per bottle.
I would agree about ignoring Santorum’s views regarding birth control. That just means that he’s a devout Catholic. There’s no way that SCOTUS decision gets reversed, so his personal views don’t worry me in that regard.
I do not think Santorum should be ignored. I doubt he can get the nomination, but the process has been seriously roiled. What’s interesting is the emergence of regional blocks. Based on results up to now, I’d take Santorum for the Great Plains and midwest. Gingrich will remain strong in the South. Paul picks up delegates throughout. Romney can win this thing, but he’s looking weak at the moment.
BB
LikeLike
Am I too old to get into law school? I’d sure like to know what the hell you guys are talking about sometimes. 🙂
LikeLike
they would be facilitating sin in others
I get that, except that presumably the ones they’d be facilitating sin in don’t believe it is a sin. This is actually one of the reasons I can’t do organized religion. I bounce around from church to church, non-denominational for the most part, because I just don’t like all the rules.
LikeLike
lms:
I bounce around from church to church, non-denominational for the most part, because I just don’t like all the rules.
So your God is a libertarian, then.
LikeLike
Imsica – The most powerful lobby of all. They’re behind QWERTY, too.
BB
LikeLike
NoVA, who exactly is lobbying to keep insurance and the workplace linked?
it’s not on the agenda now, but when Healthy Americans was proposed managed care plans were doing so quietly.
they were concerned that people would not by coverge on the individual market and that any penalty would be too low to compel them to do so. also, the bulk of $$ is paid by employers under the current system. even with increased premiums. the plans are working with employers and brokers and not the end users. that’s nice an easy for them and those guys pay their bills. they don’t want to get rid of a sure thing for ……
the next step that has everyone afraid. either the free market will run run roughshod over the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, or godless commies at CMS will death panel us all.
LikeLike
“because I just don’t like all the rules.”
are you sure you don’t want to be libertarian?
LikeLike
Dammit…he did it again.
LikeLike
I’m only 1/4 libertarian, and 3/4 fly by the seat of my pants.
Scott, my God says people are not God, he saves judgment for himself.
LikeLike
He’s a lot younger than you Scott, so his reflexes are better.
LikeLike
lms:
Am I too old to get into law school? I’d sure like to know what the hell you guys are talking about sometimes
You don’t want to go to law school. You might up thinking like them. 🙂
LikeLike
Good point Mike. I do enjoy following the conversations but I’m just not always clear on the finer points of law. I don’t really want to go back to school though. I did that about 10 years ago to take 5 computer classes and I really hated the homework. This was an interesting thread though and not all of it legal mumbo jumbo, some of it was religious mumbo jumbo. And of course one of my favorite subjects birth control.
LikeLike
lms: Do not go over to the dark side!!!!
LikeLike
Ashot – it really does take almost nothing to make a rational basis, or courts would be mucking with much more legislation than they do.
I guess I’m less surprised the standard is so low and more surpised that laws are passed so… arbitrarily. Although having gone from medical malpractice to a practice that involves a lot more regulatory work, I really shouldn’t be that surprised.
LikeLike
In my youth I wanted to be a lawyer, but I could never grow the dorsal fin.
LikeLike
Check the chart in this Sarah Kliff WAPO article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-white-house-sees-political-opportunity-in-the-contraception-battle/2012/02/07/gIQAZ9hryQ_blog.html
I’m still wondering about the makeup of the group that feels so outraged. Most Catholics aren’t. What exactly is a devout Catholic these days?
LikeLike
ABC,
Interesting. Thanks.
LikeLike
lms:
I’m just not always clear on the finer points of law
You and most non-lawyers too. I think it is what we outsiders call “job security.”
You get a hint of how counterintuitive legalese can be when you see the term “rational basis” and then read QB’s example (taxing parking spaces because, well, they are there), which doesn’t have much basis in reason. Not only that, but the whole idea of different levels of scrutiny is nowhere in the Constitution — just some made up thing the New Deal era SCOTUS came up with.
Oy.
LikeLike
lms: Do not go over to the dark side!!!!
Which law or libertarianism? Don’t worry, I’m too much of a commie for either one……
LikeLike
ABC — my main objection has nothing to do with birth control and everything to do with religious liberty. The administration is willing to force providers to violate their religious principles. That they’re willing to do it over something as mundane as birth control — a cheap, readily available, routine medication that one can get pratically anywhere — simply astounds me. Why would they pick this fight? Because it’s easy to coerce a religious minority.
Even the WaPO editorial board is against this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/respecting-religious-exemptions/2012/01/22/gIQA0ZESJQ_story.html?hpid=z3
[I’m off, but this was a great post that sparked excellent dialogue. Thanks!]
LikeLike
One last point. I think hospitals are really the issue. Their religious affiliation may sometimes obscure the fact, but they’re the company store in most places where they’re located. Their workers are from all backgrounds and with limited options of where to work–you can’t be a radiology tech at a Staples. So whose rights are abridged if their insurance doesn’t cover essentials that other insurance is required to? And what individuals are being forced to violate their conscience to provide such insurance? Saying the Church isn’t very specific. Just who?
LikeLike
Nova,
I know what you mean by astounded, but I’m really not astounded at all.
This is Obama the rigid ideologue. It is a frontal assault on the Constitution, in more ways than one, but he did say he was going to fundamentally transform the country.
He believes in a comprehensive regulatory and managerial state that gives people the “right” to things and subordinates true liberty or freedom to those “rights.” It results in such a frontal assault on the Constitution because it is an ideology contrary to the principles of that document. No surprise at all.
LikeLike
Speaking of overblown rhetoric. But if you’re going to quote the rigid ideologue (pot, meet kettle), you should do it accurately. So, here it is:
“After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that’s taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
So, it is a falsehood to say that he said he was going to fundamentally transform America. There is a difference between first person singular and first person plural. I think an attorney would understand that difference. Then again, I would expect that an Ivy league grad and successful venture capitalist, organizer, and governor would understand that difference.
It is entirely true that his original statement smacks of hubris. Rallying the troops is quite different than boasting. The same error was made on MLK’s statue. But hey, if you want to call me a drum major, call me a drum major for accurate quotations.
BB
LikeLike
FB,
I’m reminded of when my torts professor would say, “Mr. Smith, you are slicing the baloney awfully thin.” Unless someone besides Obama was the “I” mentioned dozens of times in that speech (and all the others) who would lead that fundamental transformation, unless someone else told Republicans “I won,” unless someone else was the “I” who gave that litany of “I will” promises of fundamental change, I think my statement was perfectly fair and accurate.
You might be a better drum major for accurate quotations if I had actually [mis]quoted Obama. Instead, I would call you at best a drum major for pettifoggery and petty insults.
LikeLike
It is entirely true that his original statement smacks of hubris. Rallying the troops is quite different than boasting. The same error was made on MLK’s statue. But hey, if you want to call me a drum major, call me a drum major for accurate quotations.
Excellently played, Paul!
LikeLike
Mea culpa. The personal shot was unwarranted. But, hey, it gave you a chance to use that line about pettifoggery that you’d been saving.
The rigid ideologue claim of QB was totally off base. A rigid ideologue would have not been in the process of backing off, but would have required abortion to be covered. So, I’ll call you a drum major for mischaracterization and leave it at that.
BB
LikeLike