What was it that Cicero said? There is nothing so absurd that Peter Singer hasn’t said it? Something like that.
The Princeton philosophy professor’s latest effusion offers an extraordinarily limited conception of religious freedom. Taking up controversies in the Netherlands over restrictions on kosher and halal butchering, and in the U.S over the contraceptive mandate, Singer tells the pious, in effect, to get over it and subordinate their consciences to the wishes of the majority. If there isn’t an explicit religious requirement that Jews and Muslims must eat meat, that Catholics must operate universities and hospitals, then they can remain free to practice their religion in the privacy of their own homes, temples, mosques, and churches.
It’s that simple, he says. Professor Singer is quite comfortable deciding what the exercise of religion means, what genuine religious obligations are, for all the world’s faiths. We’re free so long as he says we are. In other instances, we should bend our knees before the preferences of the majority.
There’s nothing so absurd…
June 21st, 2012 | 5:29 pm
Is that called tolerance?
June 21st, 2012 | 6:24 pm
It seems to me there are three different cases each with its own arguments. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me for the law to regulate the way animals are slaughtered. Certainly if a religion required that cows or pigs had to die slow, excruciatingly painful deaths, I doubt that many people would claim the law shouldn’t prohibit that. The question here—which is an open one—is whether the Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter are unnecessarily cruel. We do not, in the United States, allow religious exemptions for (human) female circumcision. That is an intrusion on some people’s religion and/or custom.
I don’t think that in the United States, even the most solicitous of religious freedom, would seriously argue for separate seating of men and women on public busses.
I think Peter Singer misrepresented the contraceptive mandate. It does not require religious organizations to provide insurance coverage of contraception. It requires the insurance companies who are contracted with by the religious organizations to provide the coverage. I know many people do not think it is a significant enough difference, but it is nevertheless a difference. And one might ask that if it really is against the Catholic religion to provide insurance coverage of contraception, why have many religious organizations done so to comply with state mandates? I am not sure there is anything in the Catholic religion that says it is immoral to provide insurance coverage of contraception. I certainly understand why some Catholic organizations object, but I am not sure that there is a good argument that providing contraceptive coverage is immoral. Of course, there are other grounds to argue something is a violation of religious freedom than saying it is immoral to be required to do something.
June 21st, 2012 | 7:12 pm
We do not, in the United States, allow religious exemptions for (human) female circumcision. That is an intrusion on some people’s religion and/or custom.
It’s also important to note that female circumcision has been shown to be harmful to the person receiving it, whereas male circumcision is not yet proved to cause harm to those who are circumcised.
The reason this matters is because it isn’t a simple matter of religious people taking from people who don’t deserve to have anything taken from them. It’s a two-way taking – a zero sum. The religious people have rights and interests, too. That means every time you restrict someone’s liberty, you are taking something from them.
Unfortunately, some people have motives for not wanting to (choosing not to) recognize religious people as equally deserving of protections. Often, it is the same people who are most vocal about “ethics” and “liberty” and “tolerance” who are the quickest to promote unethical behavior, loss of liberty, and intolerance, as long as it is aimed at religious people. The justification goes something like, “religion is bad” (or “religious people are bad” or “religious people have been known to do bad things”), therefore reciprocity does not apply, therefore the government does not have to count religious people with the same concern and tolerance other people would be entitled to, if the government were taking away “important” liberties instead of merely “religious” ones.
I am quite sure this is precisely why the Founders made such a point of establishing religion as specifically entitled to protection in the Constitution.
June 21st, 2012 | 7:16 pm
…. and no ideas so preposterous that some people won’t find them to be wholly sensible.
June 21st, 2012 | 8:14 pm
Professor Singer is quite comfortable deciding what the exercise of religion means, what genuine religious obligations are, for all the world’s faiths. We’re free so long as he says we are. In other instances, we should bend our knees before the preferences of the majority.
Isn’t this true of anyone (or a body such as the Supreme Court) who draws a line between what will be prohibited and what will be permitted in terms of exercise of religious freedom? The objections, it seems to me, isn’t that Peter Singer has an opinion about where to draw the line. The issue is where he chooses to draw it. Line drawing is done in American courts all the time. I think everyone agrees that religious freedom is not absolute. And unless there is either total religious freedom or no religious freedom at all, lines have to be drawn.
Peter Singer hasn’t been refuted here. He has just been mentioned scornfully.
June 21st, 2012 | 9:18 pm
David,
Let’s ask a different question. How may the government compel YOU to behave contrary to YOUR conscience. Perhaps the Feds could draft you and make you waterboard a terrorist. After all, your right to a conscience is not absolute.
June 22nd, 2012 | 12:09 am
Blake,
“male circumcision is not yet proved to cause harm to those who are circumcised.”
Only because Americans are used to male circumcision so that it does not seem horrifying as it does to Hindus and perhaps other Orientals.
The proper answer is that religious freedom operates in context and is not absolute. The American context is of permitting male circumcision while forbidding female. This distinction is long-seated one. Perhaps it can be defended on natural law grounds but the local context and the traditions of the society play an important and perhaps a central role.
June 22nd, 2012 | 9:14 am
Regarding the HHS women’s preventive services mandate, David Nichol wrote: It requires the insurance companies who are contracted with by the religious organizations to provide the coverage. . . . I am not sure there is anything in the Catholic religion that says it is immoral to provide insurance coverage of contraception.
Having the insurer pick up the tab is still a proposal (see https://webapps.dol.gov/federalregister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=25950). But as of today, the Final Rule remains intact. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/21/2012-6689/certain-preventive-services-under-the-affordable-care-act.
In the Catholic tradition we employ the concept of moral cooperation. Without getting too detailed, to cooperate, even indirectly, in the wrongdoing of another (i.e., practice contraception or undergo elective sterilization) requires a proportionately serious reason for cooperation. If the insurance carrier covers the objectionable services, there would still be the indirect participation of the Catholic institution.
Although individual ethicists, moral theologians, and bishops would differ as what constitutes a good enough reason to cooperate, there is a widespread consensus that this time the federal government has overreached. The HHS mandate is truly a religious liberty issue.
June 22nd, 2012 | 9:39 am
How may the government compel YOU to behave contrary to YOUR conscience.
Mark,
How about forcing me to pay taxes that are spent on wars and other things I don’t approve of?
June 22nd, 2012 | 9:54 am
But as of today, the Final Rule remains intact.
Catholic Health Care Sister,
Yes, the initial rule remains intact, but religious organizations are exempt until August 2013, so no religious organization is required to apply with the initial rule.
Although individual ethicists, moral theologians, and bishops would differ as what constitutes a good enough reason to cooperate, there is a widespread consensus that this time the federal government has overreached. The HHS mandate is truly a religious liberty issue.
My position on this is evolving, and I do think the government has overreached. However, I have not seen a convincing argument that requiring compliance of the proposed new rule is forcing anyone to do evil. As I have said before, such an argument would “prove” that organizations already complying with state mandates are doing evil.
I agree that the mandate is a religious liberty issue, but I also believe that the USCCB and others opposing the mandate have made such an issue of its alleged constitutionality that if the courts uphold it, the bishops will be undermined. Their specialty is not constitutional law. I trust the courts to make the right decision here, and if they uphold the mandate, they are the final arbiters, and the mandate cannot be said to be an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.
June 22nd, 2012 | 12:29 pm
David Nickol –
In effect right now, actually: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/11/18/women-getting-rosa-parks-treatment-in-brooklyn/
Personally, I figure that the state should have to demonstrate an overriding compelling interest to forbid or compel anything. Rather a lot of existing regulation would not pass such a muster, it seems to me.
June 22nd, 2012 | 12:53 pm
“Peter Singer hasn’t been refuted here. He has just been mentioned scornfully.”
Singer seems blissfully unaware of the fact that many Christians chose to excercise their religion outside of their churches. As a matter of fact, there is an explicit prohibition on Congress not create to create laws that limit the free excercise of religion. According to Siinger, the 1st Amendment only applies to places of worship. Once a Christian leaves Church, First Amendment protections go away.
What is wrong with discussion like this is that all evolve into nothing more than abstract discussions of legal and philosophical trivia.
“…but I also believe that the USCCB and others opposing the mandate have made such an issue of its alleged constitutionality that if the courts uphold it, the bishops will be undermined. Their specialty is not constitutional law. I trust the courts to make the right decision here,…”
Luckily, the Bishops do not rely on experts or public opinion to determine when their religious freedoms are violated. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the mandate, the Church will have no recourse but to shutdown most of their charitable organization, as well as remove health insurance as a benefit to its employees. Yes, the likes of Peter Singer will be thrilled. But, the end result is will not be so pleasant to the millions of people who benefit from the Church’s “free excercise of religion.”
June 22nd, 2012 | 12:59 pm
“How may the government compel YOU to behave contrary to YOUR conscience.
Mark,
How about forcing me to pay taxes that are spent on wars and other things I don’t approve of?”
@David Nichol,
Read the Constitution. Pacificism is not a guarenteed right. I’m sure there were plently of people who thought our involvement in WWII was immoral from a religious perspective. But, FDR didn’t outsource his or Congress’s war powers authority to a vast unelected bureaucracy. President Obama essientially is abrogating First Amendment protections with a bureaucratic stroke of his pen. It is his belief that religious protections are things that are in fact negotiable.
June 22nd, 2012 | 2:04 pm
JP –
What if one’s religion mandates pacifism? Apparently you’re saying there are limits to what one can claim counts as ‘religious freedom’.
What are those limits?
June 22nd, 2012 | 3:53 pm
JP,
You are confusing me. Religious liberty is not absolute in the United States. You seem to recognize this as true for pacifism, but you also seem to believe that if the courts approve the contraceptive mandate, they will be wrong. Who gets to decided these things in the United States? Certainly not religious organizations. Exemptions from laws claimed on the basis of religious freedom are denied all the time. The Amish, who don’t believe in insurance and are exempted from paying into the Social Security system themselves, are not exempt for paying into Social Security if they run a business and have employees eligible for Social Security. It’s not that they object to something someone might get through Social Security. They object to Social Security itself, and yet the government requires them to pay into it.
I will grant that the contraceptive mandate is very debatable, but it may pass constitutional muster, and if it does, it cannot be considered an unjust infringement on religious liberty.
If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the mandate, the Church will have no recourse but to shutdown most of their charitable organization, as well as remove health insurance as a benefit to its employees.
This is, of course, not true. The Supreme Court has already declined to hear appeals of the New York and California state mandates, and no religious organizations in either state have shut down. The Diocese of Madison complied with that state’s mandate after switching to self-insurance to avoid the mandate and finding it too expensive. No Catholic organization has yet shut down over this issue, and while I suppose it is possible a few may if the mandate is imposed, we are not going to see a mass shut-down of Catholic religious organizations as a result. The vast majority of organizations are not run by “the Church” (that is, by the bishops), but are affiliated with the Church and run by independent boards. Given the widespread rejection of Catholic sexual teachings by Catholics themselves, how many board members of organizations like hospitals are going to be willing to close down the organizations they work for over contraception?
June 22nd, 2012 | 4:02 pm
What if one’s religion mandates pacifism? Apparently you’re saying there are limits to what one can claim counts as ‘religious freedom’.
What are those limits?
The US government actually has a specific answer in their conscientious objector rules.
If I understand aright, you have the right to refuse to kill, but not to refuse to serve. Conscientious objectors can be made to serve in support roles (including chaplaincy and medical roles).
June 22nd, 2012 | 4:13 pm
Blake,
“male circumcision is not yet proved to cause harm to those who are circumcised.”
Only because Americans are used to male circumcision so that it does not seem horrifying as it does to Hindus and perhaps other Orientals.
I find male circumcision pretty horrifying too, and if I had my way no mutilations would be practiced on any minor child – including not only circumcision but also body piercing, breast implants, nose jobs, tattoos, sex change operations, gender tampering, hormones to delay the onset of adolescence, etc., except when an impartial judge finds the mutilation to be in service of a compelling need.
But being disgusted is not the same thing as demonstrating harm.
Harm means you have to have at least one person who can testify to how his life has been diminished in a meaningful way as a result of being circumcised.
And even then, you have to consider both sides of the equation. It is easy enough to ban circumcision, if you are going to allow exemptions for religious communities. Nobody minds if you are going to impose your values when you’re not actually taking anything of value away.
But when you ban orthodox religious communities, then the question becomes a contest between two sets of values.
You are saying the “important” value – the one we should all share – is the importance of genital integrity. This relies on assumptions:
(a) the importance of bodily integrity
(b) the genitals as being especially important
But some Orthodox people don’t value those things. They value other things – things that you are trying to take away:
(c) their sense of having a covenant with God
(d) their ability to participate in a tradition that binds them with their forefathers
(e) their ability to develop their religious identity in their own way
Who are you to decide that values (a) and (b) are more important than values (c)(d) & (e)?
June 22nd, 2012 | 4:18 pm
A word on trashing Peter Singer . . .
Religious people as a group expect to be treated with respect no matter how totally irreconcilable their different accounts of reality are. If Jews are right, Jesus was not the Messiah. If Mormons and Muslims are right, there is no Triune God. If Hindus are right, there are many gods. If any particular religion is right, many others must be dead wrong. And yet few here would ridicule Christianity, Buddhism, Mormonism, Judaism, and so on.
Yet many religious people delight in ridiculing and deriding Peter Singer, who is word famous, has a well thought out, self-consistent approach to ethics and philosophy and is on the faculty of one of the most prestigious universities in the country (along with Robert George and Cornel West). I would not for a minute argue that all approaches to ethical and religious questions are equal. But it seems to me that if any one of the world’s major religions is as right as it considers itself to be, all the others are wrong, and arguably no more wrong than Peter Singer is if, say, Catholicism is right. So I think it ill behooves religious people (particularly Christians) to treat a person like Peter Singer with contempt when they, in turn, want to be treated with respect by him.
June 22nd, 2012 | 9:34 pm
[...] Knippenberg at the First Thoughts blog reflects on Peter Singer’s recent narrow argument for religious [...]
June 23rd, 2012 | 12:18 am
Blake,
“If I understand aright, you have the right to refuse to kill, but not to refuse to serve. Conscientious objectors can be made to serve in support roles (including chaplaincy and medical roles).”
The pacifist is being forced by you to serve in a support role, which to him means participating in evil. If you believe that Roman institutions shouldn’t cover contraception for their non-Roman employees because they would otherwise be participating in evil, then you would have to accept the pacifist desire to refuse to serve in a support role.
Everyone seems to want to simplify a complex issue into simple black and white.
June 23rd, 2012 | 9:48 am
@David Nichol,
Despite your soothing assurances, several Bishops (inlcuding Dolan and George) have in fact said that they will have no recourse but to either close down services or stop offering insurance to their employees. And yes, non-affiliated organizations have no problem with the mandate. And I am sure there will be a growing number of Catholic health care systems that will end their affiliation with the Church (esp those run by Catholic Sisters). There organizations affiliation was in name only. ObamaCare will just mark the final break.
I think it should also be pointed out that it matters not whether Catholic couples follow Church teaching concerning contraception. The Canon has in no way changed over thed decades. The Church still teaches that use of artificial contraception is a Mortal Sin (something that it has taught for centuries). It’s teachings concerning abortion go all the way back to the 2nd Century Didache. It isn’t going to change 2000 years of magesterial teaching in order to satisfy a subjective, evolving moral standard imposed from above. There are still some Catholics who still believe Church teaching that using artificial contraception puts their souls at riks. Forcing a citizen to co-operate with evil (as explicitly defined by the Church) is by definition oppression.
As I stated earlier, Peter Singer (and I suppose you as well) have this new notion that the free excercise of religion is something that must remain confined inside the church’s wall. The minute Catholics (or any Christian) steps outside, they become nothing more than subjects of an ever expansive state. One wonders why the President lied to Catholic Bishops. In the big scheme of things it doesn’t make any sense. Catholic Bishops were one of ObamaCare’s biggest cheerleaders. The President has offered over 1000 waivers and exclusions to a variety of organizations, which have a far larger impact on ObamaCare than the contraception exclusion for Catholics. With one stroke of his pen, the President picked a fight which he cannot hope to win.
June 23rd, 2012 | 2:27 pm
Despite your soothing assurances, several Bishops (inlcuding Dolan and George) have in fact said that they will have no recourse but to either close down services or stop offering insurance to their employees.
JP,
Please see the article in the New York Times titled N.Y. Law on Contraceptives Already in Place, and Catholic Institutions Comply. Both New York and California have very strict contraceptive mandates that were fought in court and were upheld. Some Catholic organizations chose to self-insure to avoid the mandates, but I am unaware of any who were unable to avoid self-insurance who either stopped offering insurance or shut down rather than comply with the state mandates. If you know of any examples of Catholic organizations shutting down rather than complying with a state contraceptive mandate, I would be interested in hearing about them. I don’t believe there are any.
My personal position is that requiring Catholic organizations (of certain kinds) to provide insurance that covers contraception is an abridgment of religious freedom, but that religious freedom is not absolute, and the government may not be violating the First Amendment to impose the mandate. There is really no significant difference between an officially Catholic hospital and a Catholic hospital operating “within the Catholic tradition” other than an agreement with the local bishop. From the standpoint of the government, I can certainly see making the case that a hospital is a hospital is a hospital, and that the same laws that apply to for-profit hospitals should apply to non-religious not-for-profit hospitals and religious (including Catholic) hospitals.
June 23rd, 2012 | 4:31 pm
Both New York and California have very strict contraceptive mandates that were fought in court and were upheld. Some Catholic organizations chose to self-insure to avoid the mandates, but I am unaware of any who were unable to avoid self-insurance who either stopped offering insurance or shut down rather than comply with the state mandates.
Even if it were true that the two situations were analogous (and it has already been pointed out that there are major differences between the state and federal levels), it still does not stand to reason that because some Catholics have chosen to accept something that may violate their freedoms, that other Christians are morally or legally obligated to do the same.
Nancy Pelosi calls herself a Catholic and yet does things that most Catholics reject – for instance, she has defined being Catholic as something you do when you’re at Mass, and you don’t do when you’re not at Mass. Does it really then follow that because she holds that belief, that therefore all Catholics should hold that belief?
Or better yet, tell me again: why do you need to control other peoples’ religious beliefs, anyway? Contraception isn’t even medicine, and it’s already subsidized by the government, so what benefit is there to do this to them, other than that you get the chance to make Catholics adhere to humanist beliefs at the expense of Catholic beliefs?
June 24th, 2012 | 7:21 pm
Blake,
I am responding to the claim that Catholic organizations will shut down rather than comply with the contraceptive mandate. I am merely pointing out that I do not find the claim plausible, since no organizations have closed down because of state mandates, although some have chosen to self-insure. We don’t know how close the federal mandate will be to state mandates, since the federal mandate is under revision.
I don’t want to rehash old debates. I am saying it is not plausible that there will be a massive shutdown of Catholic charities, Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, etc., if the contraceptive mandate survives in a from still objectionable to the Catholic Bishops.
June 24th, 2012 | 10:59 pm
I don’t want to rehash old debates. I am saying it is not plausible that there will be a massive shutdown of Catholic charities, Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, etc., if the contraceptive mandate survives in a from still objectionable to the Catholic Bishops.
If the contraceptive mandate survives, then serious harm will be done to the concept of religious freedom in America – so much so that I think America will be fundamentally transformed from a nation that prioritizes religious freedom, to a nation that imposes a humanist vision on its citizenry at the expense of religious freedom.
Fortunately, I don’t think it is going to come to that, because I do not think the HHS mandate will stand. There is no evidence to support the idea that a majority of Americans really want to replace the idea of religious freedom with a nation where the state enforces a single ideology on its citizenry by brute force.
June 25th, 2012 | 11:40 am
Here’s an example of another atheist who disagrees with Singer: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/06/25/religious-liberty-and-state-power/
“The question is not when should the government violate someone’s religious liberty, it is when should the government violate anyone’s liberty for any reason. And the answer is that the government should restrict someone’s freedom when their exercise of that freedom denies another person their equal rights or does them harm against their will.”
June 26th, 2012 | 12:31 pm
Ever since the whole issue of the HHS mandate erupted a raft of cynical ideas’ have been percolating in my mind. They are comprised of several parts, one involves the timing, coming as it did on the tail end of the contraception non issue in the Republican primaries, an issue at least partially contrived by certain members of the press, coupled with the upsurge in the Presidents “war on women” campaign sloganeering where he took several comments by Santorum and tried to make them seem as though they were planks in the RNCs’ platform.
Another element is a question. Since contraception is being called a health issue and for all of my adult life abortion has been called a health issue why did the mandate not include it in their directive. Maybe the political calculus told them that that would be a bridge too far since contraception was widely accepted and abortion not so much.
So my take is that the line was drawn the way it was out of the pure political calculation that they could keep the whole phony issue alive by pushing this one button that they knew would have to react the way it did and since its orthodoxy would be conflated with conservatism their “war against women” would be further exposed and confirmed.
As for Peter Singer lets just say that some of us, while acknowledging that lines are necessary, are not enamored of where he has suggested they should be drawn i.e. killing should be allowed up to 6 mos’ after birth for certain not up to snuff humans. I’m sure his logic is impeccable. That lines must be drawn is a truism not a helpful guide as to where.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact