Bishop Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, has written the Parable of the Kosher Deli, “for those with ears to hear.” In this lesson, the government has applied a nation-wide mandate that requires kosher delicatessen’s to serve ham sandwiches. Naturally, the owners were incensed and demanded that the law be rescinded. Rather than abandon the mandate wholesale, though, the government employed what seemed to be an accommodating compromise:
“Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu, and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things. First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them. This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.”
Read more here
February 16th, 2012 | 3:22 pm
Ahh, the beauty of a good analogy.
February 16th, 2012 | 3:32 pm
Bishop Lori fails to take some things into account:
1. There is a loud and vocal lobby of Aggressive Ham Eaters who believe they deserve free ham wherever and whenever they want it. They have the “right” to it. They pretend there will be, in fact, no ham sandwiches to be found anywhere at all if kosher delicatessens do not provide them gratis.
2. The Aggressive Ham Eaters particularly want kosher delis to provide ham sandwiches because
(a) they dislike kosher delis and the types who own them; and
(b) the delicatessens’ conscientious objection to serving ham seems so judgmental to ham eaters and this is mean and unfair. No one likes being judged. It isn’t pleasant.
3. The opinion of the Aggressive Ham Eaters is shared by the current Powers-that-Be in government and the press. They don’t know anyone who shuns ham. What kind of weirdos are those deli people anyway?
4. There is a large population who has never given a moment’s thought to either eating or not eating ham. No free ham—what’s with that? Why are kosher delicatessens so obsessed with food anyway? Why can’t we all be ham-eating friends? Did you hear about Whitney Houston?
February 16th, 2012 | 4:05 pm
This trivializes the issue of contraception and women’s health, which is in no way a comparable issue to what kosher delis serve. Of course it is “absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich.” It is not absurd for insurance to cover contraception, and in fact most insurance already does. The contraceptive mandate raises a real issue of religious freedom. Silly analogies to kosher delis serve no useful purpose and make one wonder why some people can’t argue the real issue—contraception—instead of making extraordinarily lame analogies.
If there were significant health problems associated with kosher meat, would anyone question the government’s ability to intervene where kosher delis were serving it? That is still a poor analogy, but it is a much better one than the one offered.
I really find it difficult to believe that those who won’t at least take the issue of contraception seriously are at all serious about abortion, or women’s health, for that matter.
February 16th, 2012 | 4:31 pm
“Of course it is “absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich.”
But it is not absurd for someone to come into a *restaurant* and demand a ham sandwich — if the restaurant chooses to serve ham sandwiches.
Kosher delis do not, that is the only thing that sets them apart from other restaurants. And anyone who walks into a Kosher deli demanding a ham sandwich is being absurd — just like anyone who accepts a job from a Catholic employer and then demands that contraception be paid for by the employer.
Last I checked, no one’s health is ever augmented or endangered by the funding source for a medical or semi-medical procedure, when the person has both employment income and general health coverage, thereby providing sufficient disposable income for optional purchases like contraception.
February 16th, 2012 | 4:33 pm
“This trivializes the issue of contraception and women’s health, which is in no way a comparable issue to what kosher delis serve. ”
I suspect Orthodox Jews would disagree. Putting that aside, can you explain precisely what “the issue of contraception and women’s health” is? Contraception is legal, inexpensive, and widely available. Contraception does not promote women’s health, rather, it inhibits the proper functioning of the reproductive systems. (Contraception does reduce sexually transmitted diseases but there is no more reason to publicly protect and fund dangerous sex any more than any other activity with the potential to cause disease.) So what is the “issue?”
“It is not absurd for insurance to cover contraception, and in fact most insurance already does.”
That wasn’t the argument being advanced.
“Silly analogies to kosher delis serve no useful purpose and make one wonder why some people can’t argue the real issue—contraception—instead of making extraordinarily lame analogies.”
Again I suspect that Orthodox Jews do not believe kosher food is silly. I would wonder why some people can’t argue for the inherent right to conception without hand-waving toward the vague, undefined concept of “women’s health.”
Kosher food is an ancient religious tradition. Defining contraception as healthcare is not, and would have been considered bizarre and absurd almost everywhere throughout human history.
“If there were significant health problems associated with kosher meat, would anyone question the government’s ability to intervene where kosher delis were serving it? That is still a poor analogy, but it is a much better one than the one offered.”
If there were significant health problems, it would probably never have evolved into such an important religious tradition. But, no, if adults want to eat unhealthy foods, so long as the risks are understood, why stop them? Obviously, there are already many unhealthy food choices out there. McDonalds is required to provide information on calorie levels and percentage of fat, I think that’s enough.
“I really find it difficult to believe that those who won’t at least take the issue of contraception seriously are at all serious about abortion, or women’s health, for that matter.”
Again, please define “the issue of contraception.” As far as I can tell, contraception is a way to enjoy recreational sex and avoid the responsibility of children and the discipline of chastity. Considering the problems facing the world today, from war to political oppression to cultural decline… I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for having to pay about $40 a month to suppress the natural functioning of their reproductive systems so as to avoid the consequences of fornication.
February 16th, 2012 | 5:17 pm
There are people claiming that if religious organizations do not provide free contraception, sterilization and abortifacients in their insurance coverage, then somehow contraception availability will mysteriously disappear from across the land. Not only that, it means that someone (churches? Bishops? The GOP?) is trying to ban birth control.
Many lack a sense of proportion—is it worse to be forced against your will to cooperate with evil (including murder) or to be slightly inconvenienced in obtaining elective health care products that you consider benign in purpose and are easily accessed elsewhere?
I’ll add that as a woman, I resent pro-choice zealots who presume to speak for All Womankind, and who cynically manipulate the public by playing the worst female stereotypes—hysterical, emotional, incapable of understanding arguments or assigning priorities to matters of life, death, and freedom.
sometimes it is necessary to recast a story in simple English or through analogies, for the sake of those muddy-headed, confused, or bigoted people who cannot or will not see the Truth.
February 16th, 2012 | 7:06 pm
“If there were significant health problems associated with kosher meat, would anyone question the government’s ability to intervene where kosher delis were serving it? That is still a poor analogy, but it is a much better one than the one offered.” Not really. You assume that we all agree that government ‘experts’ should determine (for an allegedly self-governing people) what constitutes a “significant health problem” when it comes to food. The list is endless (Twinkies, ice cream, meat, swordfish, tuna, cream, eggs, butter, bacon, etc, etc.), and that’s the problem — it’s none of the government’s business to prevent what people eat. They can tell us it’s not good for you, but after that they should get out of the way. Secondly, contraception is arguably a women’s health issue (and a men’s health issue, particularly if someone chooses to sleep around with multiple partners or sleeps with someone who prefers multiple partners) — but providing abortion pills is not a woman’s ‘health’ issue except in rare cases. It’s quite clear that if someone chooses to be irresponsible, that is not a health problem, nor is pregnancy a disease.
February 16th, 2012 | 8:59 pm
An actual incident:
Who is right. Should Muslim cab drivers, to whom dogs are unclean in much the same way swine were to the Jews in the New Testament, be forced to accept blind passengers with guide dogs?
We’ve heard enough about kosher delis. Do Muslims have religious rights to avoid dogs and alcohol?
February 17th, 2012 | 4:19 am
David Nickol
Or, to revert to kosher delis, a number of countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and, recently, the Netherlands) prohibit shechita or ritual slaughter. The Muslim equivalent of halal slaughter is also prohibited.
Is such a prohibition within the legislature’s margin of appreciation?
February 17th, 2012 | 8:10 am
I’m sure I’m the only one who thinks it’s a little bit unseemly for a Catholic bishop to propose a parable in which he himself is played by a persecuted Jew and the secular democratic government appears in the role of villain; considering, that is, how often, in reality, it has been the Catholic authorities who have persecuted Jews, and how much more securely Jews have always lived in secular democracies.
But it was an inept analogy anyway. In the well-posed version, the deli owner staffed his restaurant with low-cost Gentile workers, but demanded a right to pay lower wages to Gentiles whom he suspected of eating ham sandwiches on their days off.
February 17th, 2012 | 8:25 am
I think we should take into consideration not only what the government might require a religious organization to do – provide contraceptives- but also what the government may require what a religion may not do – ie circumcision. I believe this issue came up last year, in California, as a so-called ‘human rights’ issue. Thank God it was rejected, but I suspect may come up again.
February 17th, 2012 | 8:30 am
“We’ve heard enough about kosher delis. Do Muslims have religious rights to avoid dogs and alcohol?”
Yes, which is why devout Muslims should not become dog-catchers or bartenders. It is equally true that women who find the minimal cost of birth control to be too burdensome, and need their contraception provided free of charge by their employer, should not work for Church-affiliated individuals or entities.
February 17th, 2012 | 8:53 am
“Last I checked, no one’s health is ever augmented or endangered by the funding source for a medical or semi-medical procedure, when the person has both employment income and general health coverage, thereby providing sufficient disposable income for optional purchases like contraception.”
It’s the fact that the employment income and general health coverage both come from the same source that causes me to think this is a tempest in a teacup:
A) Catholics who hire non-Catholics pay them income knowing with certainty that some of it will be spent on things that Catholics consider sinful. This is not a problem, because once the employee has earned the money, it’s the employee’s income to do with as he/she sees fit. As you imply, employees are free to use money paid as salary by a Catholic employer to purchase contraceptives.
B) Insurance coverage funded by an employer is part of the employee’s compensation package. Everyone agrees that the total benefit package should be included in calculations of how much people earn.
C) Therefore, it is not clear that the money being used to pay for contraception belongs to the Catholic employer. If the insurance coverage belongs to the employee in the same manner that salary does, then the government is telling employees what they must do with some of their income. That may be annoying to Catholic employees, but it has no moral bearing on the Catholic employer.
February 17th, 2012 | 9:08 am
but also what the government may require what a religion may not do – ie circumcision. I believe this issue came up last year, in California, as a so-called ‘human rights’ issue. Thank God it was rejected, but I suspect may come up again.
Kim,
That was male circumcision. But female circumcision is already illegal in the United States. Do you think that, as a religious practice, it should be legally permitted?
February 17th, 2012 | 9:11 am
Yes, which is why devout Muslims should not become dog-catchers or bartenders.
Brian,
And of course they don’t. But they do become cab drivers and supermarket cashiers. Should a Muslim cab driver be forced to pick up a blind passenger with a guide dog?
February 17th, 2012 | 9:27 am
“and how much more securely Jews have always lived in secular democracies.”
You mean like Germany and France?
And while the Soviet Union was not a democracy, you really couldn’t get more secular. How secure were Jews there?
February 17th, 2012 | 10:11 am
Taxi’s and Bars are licensed by local governments — a Catholic soup kitchen, Catholic college, or Catholic relief agency is not licensed by the government. There’s no comparison.
February 17th, 2012 | 10:12 am
Ed Morrissey points us to a 2009 study conducted by the CDC that has a number of interesting tidbits that illustrate how this entire controversy is nothing more than the Obama administration simply pushing religious organizations around. Read pages 14 and 15 here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf
On page 14, it asks women who had unplanned pregnancies who were not using contraception at the time they conceived why they chose not to use contraception. The answers are interesting, but what’s particularly noteworthy is the one reason that does not even make the list–lack of access to contraception. It appears that lack of access to contraception is such a non-issue, it doesn’t factor at all into the reasons why women have unplanned pregnancies. This might have something to do with the fact that, contrary to what many on the left imagine, contraception is widely available, relatively cheap, and even offered for free at clinics all over the country. Forcing employers to provide for “free” what no seems to have any problem getting for themselves is a solution in search of a problem. Unless that problem is figuring out how to motivate the base for an upcoming election.
Page 15 is even more interesting. It notes that for women of child-bearing age, 99% of women have used some form of birth control, what the authors refer to as universal usage of birth control. That, along with the debunked poll about the number of Catholics who used contraception tells us that most Catholics don’t follow their Church’s teachings on contraception. This much we already knew. It also tells us, again, that people have no problem accessing contraception, and thus forcing employers to provide contraception for “free” is the solution to a problem that does not exist. Unless you’re looking to stoke the culture wars and stick your finger in the eyes of religious conservatives–you know–the “other” in the eyes of secular liberals.
One more point, it says quite a bit about the Obama administration that they are willing to grant thousands of waivers to companies so that they don’t have to abide by one of the employer mandates of the health bill. Many of these companies are unionized, and they contributed tons of money and boots on the ground to get the health law over the finish line. Obama and Sebelius have rewarded them with waivers from complying with the health law for reasons of pure crony capitalism, but not for religious organizations claiming infringements on the First Amendment right to not have their free expression of religion prohibited. Good to know.
February 17th, 2012 | 10:40 am
Taxi’s and Bars are licensed by local governments — a Catholic soup kitchen, Catholic college, or Catholic relief agency is not licensed by the government. There’s no comparison.
Publius,
So you are saying that because taxi companies are licensed by local government, the concept of religious freedom goes out the window? I would point out that hospitals are also licensed by local governments. No religious freedom for hospital employees, either?
Or is it just that Christians should have religious freedom but Muslims should not?
February 17th, 2012 | 10:42 am
Publius,
Should a Catholic taxi driver have a right to refuse to take a pregnant woman to an abortion clinic?
February 17th, 2012 | 11:30 am
“And of course they don’t. But they do become cab drivers and supermarket cashiers. Should a Muslim cab driver be forced to pick up a blind passenger with a guide dog?”
The same principle applies. A Catholic should not go work at an abortion clinic either, because they will find themselves involved in activity they find morally reprehensible. But what does any of this have to do with the HHS mandate? You appear to not see the distinction between employers and employees, and you really are not going to understand this issue if that eludes you.
I take it you think the Muslim taxi-driver should have to pick-up the man with the guide dog. I agree. The employee should not be able to change the character of the employer’s business. Similarly, a woman going to work for a Catholic charity should not be able to use government coercion to force a change in the character of the charity by compelling the charity to pay for contraception, especially abortion pills like Ella and Plan B.
February 17th, 2012 | 11:50 am
David,
You are missing the point — the government is attempting to broaden the sphere of its power, to force religlious institutions, not an individual cab driver or bar tender, to purchase something for its employees that is contrary to their faith. It’s has nothing to do with a cab driver refusing a fare or a bar tender acting in a discriminatory fashion. You started out by criticizing Bishop Lori’s analogy, and now you keep moving from one unrelated analogy to another. There’s nothing complicated about the issue at stake: it’s as clear as the American Constitution, “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Why is the intent of that statement so difficult for you to grasp?
February 17th, 2012 | 12:07 pm
There’s nothing complicated about the issue at stake: it’s as clear as the American Constitution, “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Why is the intent of that statement so difficult for you to grasp?
Publius,
I think there is a very good chance that the contraceptive mandate is constitutional. That is why there is so much talk of the Religious Freedom Restoration act, which was passed by congress because it didn’t like the Supreme Court’s approach to religious freedom in Employment Division v Smith (written by Antonin Scalia). In interpreting the Constitution, you have to take into account over 200 years of precedent. And of course we are not talking about a law passed by congress, but a regulation promulgated by HHS.
February 17th, 2012 | 12:26 pm
…And a regulation passed by unelected HHS bureaucrats makes the constitutional violation all the more egregious. Never before, in 220+ years of American constitutional history, has the government mandated the purchase of items that are contrary to a religious faith. It is a complete shredding of the first amendment’s free exercise clause.
February 17th, 2012 | 1:23 pm
This trivializes the issue of contraception and women’s health
But the issue of contraception is trivial.
Promiscuity is not a serious issue. It is a form of gluttony. The right to have sex freely and without consequence is as “serious” as the right to glut on Cinnabon every day without gaining weight.
Only trivial people think that government-subsidized pleasure-seeking is more important than real health care.
February 17th, 2012 | 3:58 pm
Never before, in 220+ years of American constitutional history, has the government mandated the purchase of items that are contrary to a religious faith.
Publius,
Well, here’s something quite interesting:
There are religious exemptions for government programs like Social Security, but I believe I am correct in saying that there are no exemptions from government requirements that car owners buy car insurance.
So there is at least one other case where governments (state) require people to buy a product which is forbidden by their religion. However, in the case of insurance, Muslim authorities allow some flexibility, whereas in the case of contraception, at least some Catholics insist there must be no compliance whatsoever.
I would note in the case of the Muslim objection, it is insurance itself they take to be immoral, not just something someone with insurance might (or might not) choose to obtain with his or her coverage.
February 18th, 2012 | 9:28 am
In countries with exhorbitant health care costs, one could argue that compassion for those who are ill takes precedence over a dislike of health insurance.
One could argue that compelling need justifies deprivation of religious freedoms, but what has that to do with contraceptives?
Even if you assumed that contraceptives are “necessary”, they are already widely available – and are directly subsidized by the government.
Women who can’t afford contraceptives already qualify for free contraceptives.
So where is the compelling need?
The only “need” I see here is liberals’ “need” to bully Catholics during an election year.
February 18th, 2012 | 10:43 am
But no one has to buy a car, and in fact many people are quite happy not to, or otherwise function without one. You don’t have to buy car insurance simply to exercise the right to travel freely — you have to buy car insurance to operate a car.
This is unlike the HHS mandate, which requires contraception coverage not merely if one offers insurance, but if one simply employs people.
February 18th, 2012 | 11:56 am
My NFP class costs hundreds of dollars. Shouldn’t the government force all organizations to pay for that?
February 18th, 2012 | 3:18 pm
My NFP class costs hundreds of dollars. Shouldn’t the government force all organizations to pay for that?
Paul,
Yes, I think so. If there is a mandate for insurance coverage of contraception, it should definitely cover the cost of NFP instruction and supplies. If Catholic organizations have not been covering NFP costs all along in the health insurance they already provide, or as a separate benefit, I would like to know why not.
It seems to me that though Catholic organizations feel they have been handed a lemon on the contraceptive mandate, they could use it to make lemonade by promoting NFP.
February 20th, 2012 | 10:22 am
David,
Well done digging up an obscure Islamic scholar who finds insurance contrary to his religion. And of course we all know that driving a car is yet another inalienable right.
February 20th, 2012 | 11:08 am
Well done digging up an obscure Islamic scholar who finds insurance contrary to his religion.
Publius,
If you do a little research, you will see that this is not a matter of one obscure Islamic scholar, but of Islamic Law.
And of course we all know that driving a car is yet another inalienable right.
I don’t see the relevance of this remark.
February 20th, 2012 | 4:57 pm
You mentioned some states (not the Federal government, of course) mandating auto insurance if you want to drive a car. Yet, no one is forced to drive a car. We are all being forced to buy into Obamacare (at least until, God willing, the Supreme Court strikes it down). That’s the difference.
February 20th, 2012 | 10:17 pm
So if I m a devout Catholic who believes that both contraceptives and abortion are immoral, will I be able to purchase either through my employer (if in fact it is actually my money) or individually a policy that does not include the mandated items. Can I get my religious exemption?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact