No Bishops will be arrested. That’s where the laity comes in.

Here’s what happens when you violate the law on religious grounds:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0726-01.htm

http://www.soaw.org/soaw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3187&catid=92:press-releases&Itemid=79

I predict the laity will not show up in appreciable numbers. Talk is cheap. Prison time is hard.

It seems to me the only kind of civil disobedience open to Catholic bishops or other Catholics opposed to the contraceptive mandate is somehow defying the law itself. If there are any Catholic principles that could justify occupying buildings, blocking traffic, or taking over public parks, I am unaware of them.

As I have said a number of times before, it seems to me the time for digging their heels in and saying, “We will never comply,” was about a decade ago when states began enforcing mandates. The fact that many Catholic organizations (particularly in New York and California) have already complied and already offer insurance that covers contraception makes it difficult, in my opinion, to claim complying is utterly unthinkable. Cardinal Dolan himself has Catholic organizations in his archdiocese that cover contraception in the insurance they provide. Why doesn’t he insist they cease immediately?

Harry, I treat your coy answer as “Yes.”

It is a fact that you brought up a call to arms, not me. If my pointing out that fact is “coy” according to you, that is beyond my control, as is your treating my answer as “yes” when that is not my answer, and as would be any hallucinations you may currently be experiencing.

As for churches paying taxes being a “canary in the coal mine” test for religious persecution taking place, you can decide whatever you want. Go for it.

That said, it is very difficult to play the martyr when nobody’s trying to kill you.

Unlike here: http://www.franks.house.gov/press_releases/506

For Harry and Mike and Fr. Rutler, here’s the “canary in the coal mine” test: Do religions pay property taxes on church buildings and do they pay income taxes on their collections?

As long as the answer is “No” then there’s no serous religous persecution in the United States. The 2016 elections will be held as scheduled.

A call to arms, Harry?

It is you that bring up a call to arms, not me.

I am just proposing that the inevitable consequence, whatever it may be, of Caesar playing God in America, will have to end in either people of faith or atheists prevailing. Admitting there are irreconcilable differences regarding fundamental principles and that that situation cannot last, is nothing new. See Lincoln’s remark cited in my post.

I suspect people of faith will ultimately prevail, as mere mortals playing God and treating humanity like it is their private herd of animals to manage just doesn’t work here. Americans may put up with that for a while, but it can’t last indefinitely. It goes against the core principles of most Americans.

A call to arms, Harry?

“Why do you suppose there would even be elections in 2016?”

Same question to you, Michael.

An intellectual defense of the intrinsic, inalienable rights of humanity cannot be constructed upon an atheistic foundation.

A recurring theme of yours that I’ve disputed before.

Steve Billingsley,

At least part of the arguments going on here seem to hinge on how much values, and has faith in, American democracy. What should be our attitude when the Supreme Court, in our opinion, is wrong in a major decision, particularly when the decision is 5-4, as so many of them seem to be nowadays?

It seems to me you can (1) grumble and accept the decision, (2) consider it wrongly decided and work to undo it, or (3) threaten defiance and even violent resistance. Alarmingly, we have had occasional hints of 3 in these discussions. Stable government depends on going the route of 1 or 2.

Bringing up past cases like Plessy vs. Ferguson or the Dred Scott decision can be done, it seems to me, by people who take positions 2 or 3. Both those decisions were, ultimately, negated, and one can take the attitude (2) that although it make take a long time, eventually American democracy works its way to the correct conclusion. Two cheers for American democracy. It’s better than any alternatives one can come up with. Or one can take the attitude (3) that the court has proven itself to be downright wrong in the past, and if it is downright wrong in the future (say, by upholding the contraceptive mandate), it should simply be defied. Why go along with a court decision that’s just plain wrong? What is the value of due process if it arrives at the wrong position?

I find position 3 very disturbing, because I still believe in American democracy. One of the problems with the campaign against the contraceptive mandate, it seems to me, is that the American bishops have spent a great deal of effort and energy trying to convince the public that the contraceptive mandate is not just wrong, but a clear violation of the First Amendment. What will the bishops do if the contraceptive mandate is upheld by the courts. I am guessing it won’t be, but there is a good chance that it will be. The bishops will be in position 2 if not 3, as are many people now who argued that ACA (and in particular the individual mandate) were clearly and self-evidently unconstitutional.

Although it has no bearing on who is right and who is wrong about the contraceptive mandate, if it does somehow happen that the bishops go to the barricades over the issue, the fact of the matter is that not only don’t most Catholics oppose the contraceptive mandate, most Catholics don’t agree with the bishops on contraception itself. For those who believe (bizarrely) that this is all a plot by Obama to drive a wedge between the bishops and their flocks, it seems to me they should be concerned the bishops are playing right into Obama’s hands. How many Catholics are going to enlist as soldiers for the Church in a civil war against contraception?

Setting aside the moral questions of slavery and contraception, it is a little difficult for me to figure out whether your position is more analogous to the North or the South leading up to the Civil War. Your position, as I take it, is that the federal government is dictating something it has no right to, consequently its authority is, or will soon be, illegitimate. That, it seems to me, is more analogous to the position of the Southern secessionists. And also I would note that we have had at least one very conservative contemporary (Rick Perry), flirt with the the idea of seceding from the union.

It was, after all, the North that did not let the South have the freedom that they demanded. It even waged war against them and conquered them (rather brutally, I might add).