From the United States’ Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Last night, the following statement was made [by Vice President Joe Biden--the USCCB uses the passive here presumably to avoid charges of partisanship] during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:
“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”
This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.
HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.
For more details, please see USCCB’s regulatory comments filed on May 15 regarding the proposed “accommodation,” available here.
October 12th, 2012 | 1:17 pm
The fact that the Obama administration picked this fight, which was so avoidable, reveals the depth of the President’s commitment to enshrining abortion rights and providing contraception to accomodate contemporary lifestyles. It strikes me as bad politics, although in a perverse way it shows a zealous devotion to principle, a devotion so deep that the religious freedoms enshrined in the first amendment are dismissed out of hand. Other than firing up the pro-abortion Democratic party activists, it’s a loser with most Americans who cherish the principle of religious freedom.
October 12th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
Ryan asked in response to Biden’s complete denial of the reality of the situation the HHS mandate creates for many religiously affiliated institutions, “If they agree with you, then why would they keep suing you?” That concisely pointed out the obvious falsehood of Biden’s assertions.
Biden’s blatant denial of reality reminds one of the 2008 Obama/McCain debate where Obama adroitly denied the reality of his abortion extremism in his response to McCain’s factual statements regarding Obama’s actions in opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and to banning partial-birth abortion.
October 12th, 2012 | 1:56 pm
Publius: The fact that the Obama administration picked this fight
I am pretty sure that the Catholic hierarchy picked this fight. Many states already require a contraception mandate, often with fewer exemptions than the federal one, but all of a sudden, it’s the greatest outrage ever.
Publius: President’s commitment to enshrining abortion rights and providing contraception
Hold on, providing contraception is now a bad thing?
Publius: a devotion so deep that the religious freedoms enshrined in the first amendment are dismissed out of hand.
There is no First Amendment right to run roughshod over the law. There wasn’t one when the many states enacted contraceptive mandates, and there isn’t one now. The California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 against Catholic Charities. Same for Mitt Romney, who forced Catholic hospitals to give out Plan B, rightly so.
Publius: it’s a loser with most Americans who cherish the principle of religious freedom.
My hope is that with all the illegal and grossly immoral outrages that are justified with “religious freedom”, people will see through it and recognize it for what it is: an excuse to do evil. What else would justify beating a child – but religious freedom exceptions to child abuse laws. What else would justify killing a child – but religious freedom exceptions to child homicide laws.
October 12th, 2012 | 1:58 pm
[...] more details, please see USCCB’s regulatory comments filed on May 15 regarding the proposed [...]
October 12th, 2012 | 2:35 pm
“If they agree with you, then why would they keep suing you?”
harry,
To the best of my knowledge, when the courts have acted on any of these suits so far, it has been to dismiss them. Most have been dismissed on the issue of “ripeness”—it is too early to sue over regulations that have not yet been finalized. Last month, the first of the cases considered on it merits (the one involving O’Brien Industrial Holdings) was thrown out by the judge.
October 12th, 2012 | 2:50 pm
“What else would justify beating a child – but religious freedom exceptions to child abuse laws. What else would justify killing a child – but religious freedom exceptions to child homicide laws.”
Examples, please (in America)
October 12th, 2012 | 3:29 pm
Max, your disregard for the first amendment is disturbing enough, but your final “point” that religious freedom is an excuse to do “evil” shows a level of hatred for religion that is truly ugly.
October 12th, 2012 | 3:32 pm
Maximillian – Maybe people are “all of a sudden” realizing the road that has led to abortion. It always starts with something that seems insignificant when we move away from God’s laws. Like termites at a foundation. If the Dems think murdering unborn children is sooo good, as opposed to what you consider evil, why did Joe Biden not fess up to the problem that the Catholic Charities have with the HHS mandate and why did President Obama lie about his stance on the issue when he ran for President 4 years ago?
October 12th, 2012 | 3:45 pm
“I am pretty sure that the Catholic hierarchy picked this fight.”
Wow Maxy -it’s really true. When one doesn’t believe in God they really will believe in anything won’t they?
So, if the Catholic bishops are the ones who “picked this fight”, why did the Catholic Joe Biden who accepts his Church’s position that life begins at conception had to blatantly lie to an audience of 30 million+ Americans about the mandate last night? That’s pretty extreme behavior, even for Joe Biden.
You’d think, whether if you believed there is a God or not- that if the Catholic Bishops were the ones who “picked the fight” the truth would be on Biden’s side and he wouldn’t be reduced to such despicable behavior to get re-elected.
“but your final ‘point’ that religious freedom is an excuse to do “evil” shows a level of hatred for religion that is truly ugly.”
Publius — my thoughts exactly. How incredibly revealing as well as truly ugly.
October 12th, 2012 | 3:56 pm
Steve: Examples, please (in America)
I am glad you asked. Hearing about true stories of children being killed and abused because of “religious freedom” is quite different from the pale, cold, bleak, abstract statement that they are.
Child abuse: The Wisconsin statute prohibiting child abuse or neglect provides: “A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing …in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.” Just so we’re clear, in lieu means ‘instead of’ (I’m sure you know this without me stating it, but I want it established beforehand). http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20090204.html
Child homicide: Both parents were found guilty of second-degree manslaughter (…) However, because of a religious exemption that was eliminated after the Hickmans were indicted, they could face no more than 18 months in prison and a $250,000 fine. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2011/09/jury_reaches_verdict_in_faith-.html
These are just two examples. You should by no means think that these are the only two. In fact, the esteemed institution known as Congress mandated such laws in 1974 as a condition for receiving certain federal funds.
October 12th, 2012 | 3:58 pm
Publius: your disregard for the first amendment is disturbing enough
The First Amendment protects belief, not conduct. See Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than the ultraconservative and Catholic Justice Antonin Scalia. Some liberals on the court disagreed. I agree with ultraconservative Scalia.
Publius: but your final “point” that religious freedom is an excuse to do “evil” shows a level of hatred for religion that is truly ugly.
Not religion in general. I love Quakers. I despise people who kill their children for the sake of a religion. I am sure that you don’t truly mean to defend the religious exemptions to child homicide and abuse laws, so you probably agree with me that “religious freedom” is abused in such cases (and more than that).
October 12th, 2012 | 4:34 pm
“Examples, please (in America)”
Numerous example of parentes fatally exorcising demons from their children, breeding thei childreen like livestock and otehrwise engaging in other dangerous religious practices. Most widespread is perhaps Jehovah Witness blood transfusions.
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/
October 12th, 2012 | 4:43 pm
“To the best of my knowledge, when the courts have acted on any of these suits so far, it has been to dismiss them. Most have been dismissed on the issue of “ripeness”—it is too early to sue over regulations that have not yet been finalized.”
The issue of ripeness is, of course, all together unrelated as to whether or not the substance of the policy is lawful. So Ryan’s query stands. My only problem with it is he left it vague; I would have personalized it: why has “NOTRE DAME” sued you?
October 12th, 2012 | 5:07 pm
[...] USCCB Corrects Joe Biden on HHS Mandate (at First Things) (original at USCCB) [...]
October 12th, 2012 | 5:16 pm
Pflourney: It always starts with something that seems insignificant when we move away from God’s laws.
You don’t live in a theocracy. God’s laws, whichever of the millions of the world’s gods you mean, are completely irrelevant to what the law of the land is. And they should be. You need only witness the mess in Egypt, where “God’s laws” are currently being used to advocate for the legality of child marriage, genital mutilation, and a host of evils.
Pflourney: why did President Obama lie about his stance on the issue when he ran for President 4 years ago?
Help me out here. Did he do a Romney on this issue?
Mrs. Jackson: Wow Maxy -it’s really true. When one doesn’t believe in God they really will believe in anything won’t they?
I do not believe that it is right to ritually sacrifice children for the sake of a religion/divinity. I do not admire either Abraham or Agamemnon for their willingness to kill their children. This probably would get me burned during the Middle Ages.
Mrs. Jackson: So, if the Catholic bishops are the ones who “picked this fight”,
And they did. California (among other states) has been requiring Catholic Charities to provide contraception for over eight years, with no outcry form the hierarchy. Also, the question of who started the fight is completely unrelated to whether or not Biden lied. I cannot find the lie in the transcript (I don’t waste my time on useless debates). Help me out here.
Mrs. Jackson: Publius — my thoughts exactly. How incredibly revealing as well as truly ugly.
Please provide your opinion on religious freedom exemptions I mentioned. Do you disagree that it is evil to have a religious freedom exemption from child homicide/abuse laws?
October 12th, 2012 | 5:55 pm
max,
much agreement with you. but i am curious:
(1) is right and wrong based ultimately on reason? if so, whose reason?
(2) more interestingly, why should “reason” exist at all? isn’t “reason” merely the accidental collocation of atoms, aka biochemistry?
thanks.
October 12th, 2012 | 6:53 pm
Free exercise refers to conduct, not belief. It would have been stupid to put an amendment in the constitution that purportedly safeguarded one’s right to believe whatever they want, as though otherwise the government would have the ability to enforce a prohibition of the thinking of certain thoughts. Where did you get the idea that the intent of the First Amendment was to guarantee the freedom to believe? It only makes sense in reference to conduct.
As for the examples several have posted here that purport to demonstrate how religion is just “an excuse to do evil,” it should be kept in mind that all the combined sins of religion over the centuries are as nothing compared to the homicidal assaults on innocent humanity by regimes hostile to theism. Every such regime in modern history has been fatal to innocent human beings by the millions. For atheists to carry on about the evils of religion is not the pot calling the kettle black, it is more like Hitler protesting anti-Semitism.
October 12th, 2012 | 7:09 pm
“I do not believe that it is right to ritually sacrifice children for the sake of a religion/divinity.”
We applaud you.
“I do not admire either Abraham or Agamemnon for their willingness to kill their children.”
Grouping Abraham and Agamemnon together indicates you believe they are both mythical figures so your lack of admiration is hardly noble.
“This probably would get me burned during the Middle Ages.”
Your intellectual dissent may not have been rated that important. Read Malcolm Muggeridge sometime. The Soviets found a lot of folks -some dissenters, other supporters, not important enough to kill.
“And they did. California (among other states) has been requiring Catholic Charities to provide contraception for over eight years, with no outcry form the hierarchy.”
No outcry? Really? Challenging it (unsuccessfully) in court all the way to the California Supreme constitutes no outcry? Choosing to self-insure instead of paying for contraception constitutes no outcry?
“Also, the question of who started the fight is completely unrelated to whether or not Biden lied.”
This post is about Biden lying -see above. You are the one who introduced the quaint notion the Catholic Bishops “picked this fight.”
“Please provide your opinion on religious freedom exemptions I mentioned. Do you disagree that it is evil to have a religious freedom exemption from child homicide/abuse laws?”
I believe this is what you want my opinion on:
“Child abuse: The Wisconsin statute prohibiting child abuse or neglect provides: ‘A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing …in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.’ Just so we’re clear, in lieu means ‘instead of’ (I’m sure you know this without me stating it, but I want it established beforehand). http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20090204.html
“Child homicide: Both parents were found guilty of second-degree manslaughter (…) However, because of a religious exemption that was eliminated after the Hickmans were indicted, they could face no more than 18 months in prison and a $250,000 fine. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2011/09/jury_reaches_verdict_in_faith-.html
“These are just two examples. You should by no means think that these are the only two. In fact, the esteemed institution known as Congress mandated such laws in 1974 as a condition for receiving certain federal funds.”
You actually want me to comment on a Wisconsin statue, a 1974 Congressional mandate as well as a religious exemption in Oregon that has been eliminated?
How about I just comment?
If parents kill their children -for any reason- they should have the book thrown at them. By throwing the book at them I do not mean the bible, the Qur’an or the dictionary. I mean charge them with as many crimes as possible.
Last night thanks to Joe Biden he advanced the abortion debate into an area the pro-choice movement does not want to go. He said he believes life begins at conception.
He wasn’t supposed to say that but he did. And he threw every fellow pro-choicer under the bus with that.
What Biden said is he believes the Catholic Church is right. He believes every abortion, whether by an abortionist or by a pill, kills a child. And he believes -though he lied about it -that the Catholic Church must get in the abortion business by providing them for their employees, students, etal.
So now, let’s look at your fuzzy logic. You are upset about religious exemptions being used in child homicide cases. Fine. In the case of abortion those religious exemptions are gone. The religious will now -by federal law- be providing abortions and abortion inducing drugs to kill children. So when will we see women who abort their children in clinics or at home and those who provide the means for the abortions jailed?
With abortions now being taxpayer- funded, someone better start building more jails as a whole lot more people are going to be in them – in this case both the taxpayers who have funded abortion through Obamacare and those who refused to fund abortion through Obamacare and were tossed in jail as a result.
More unintended consequences of liberalism.
Good going Joe Biden.
October 12th, 2012 | 9:26 pm
In order to end the war, the Democratic
platform of 1863 offered to allow the slave
states to retain their slaves. Apparently,
like Joe Biden they preferred to not impose
a moral judgement on those who thought other-
wise.
October 12th, 2012 | 9:47 pm
Max, you despise people who kill their children for the sake of a religion, but you are fine and dandy with people who abort (aka kill) their children for non-religious reasons. Do you comment on this blog just to incite? It’s cool, isn’t it, being the rebel, the rabble rouser….
October 12th, 2012 | 10:07 pm
There are lots of erroneous comments here.
David Nickol, it is not true that plaintiffs have had no success in challenging the HHS contraception mandate. In the US District Court for the District of Colorado, the plaintiff gained a preliminary injunction against HHS to prevent HHS from enforcing the mandate. True, it’s only a preliminary injunction, but part of the test for a PI is that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits. In that case, the court ruled that the plaintiff had established a likelihood that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This case was widely reported in the summer.
http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Prelim-Injxn-Hercules4.pdf
And Maximilian, it is not true that the First Amendment only protects belief. That is crazy. There would be no need for a legal protection of belief. Belief can never be controlled by the government in the first place. And the long litigation history of the First Amendment makes clear that it protects conduct (or refraining from conduct) not just belief. The government cannot force someone to work on her Sabbath by withholding unemployment benefits if she does not. The government cannot force children to recite the pledge of allegiance if it goes against their religion. The government cannot force parents to send their children to high school if it violates their religious beliefs. And the Religious Freedom Restoration Act clearly protects conduct against infringement by the federal government — thus the Supreme Court has ruled that it can protect sacramental use of a controlled substance, which clearly is conduct.
October 12th, 2012 | 10:57 pm
Andrew:
1. Yes.
2. No. reason evolved.
October 13th, 2012 | 7:10 am
Harry wrote, “It would have been stupid to put an amendment in the constitution that purportedly safeguarded one’s right to believe whatever they want…”
Well, the Constitution does, in effect, contain just such a provision in Article VI.3. “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”
In Reynolds v US 98 U.S. 145 (1878), the Supreme Court laid down that ” “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices…” To hold otherwise, “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”
This was cited with approval in Employment Division v Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990), together with a long line of cases to the same effect.
October 13th, 2012 | 9:16 am
Andrew: (1) is right and wrong based ultimately on reason? if so, whose reason?
I’d say that right and wrong can be discovered through reason. It does not rest on anyone’s authority. Who uses reason is not that important (anyone can err), as long as it is sound reason.
Andrew: (2) more interestingly, why should “reason” exist at all? isn’t “reason” merely the accidental collocation of atoms, aka biochemistry?
There’s no reason why the human ability to reason should necessarily exist. One can easily imagine a world in which humans are even more unreasonable than they are in this one. And there are certainly ways in which we have evolved to be unreasonable. However, we have discovered that there are ways to arrive at generally correct conclusions by using our mind in certain ways.
October 13th, 2012 | 9:16 am
Harry: Free exercise refers to conduct, not belief.
Thank you for your private interpretation, but the Supreme Court disagrees. Most notably, the Catholic and ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia. The problem with the woman in Texas who got 99 years for beating her daughter was the fact that she beat her daughter, not that she didn’t have a religious excuse for it. Let me quote from Employment Division v. Smith:
We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. “Laws,” we said, are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).
Harry: It would have been stupid to put an amendment in the constitution that purportedly safeguarded one’s right to believe whatever they want, as though otherwise the government would have the ability to enforce a prohibition of the thinking of certain thoughts.
That’s what freedom of conscience refers to. It was opposed by the Catholic Church until the middle of the 20th century.
Harry: As for the examples several have posted here that purport to demonstrate how religion is just “an excuse to do evil,”
That would be off topic, though sometimes true. The point is that “religious freedom” is an excuse to do evil, and to keep evil legal. See my myriad of examples, on which you did not comment.
Harry: For atheists to carry on about the evils of religion is not the pot calling the kettle black, it is more like Hitler protesting anti-Semitism.
Last time I checked, I wasn’t Hitler. Or I must have shaved my mustache and forgotten – as a 123-year-old man is wont to do.
October 13th, 2012 | 12:02 pm
Max, so you can exercise a belief but you cannot exercise conduct consonant with your belief. That makes no sense whatsoever. Apparently religious freedom is fine as long as it is confined within the confines of your mind.
The Supreme Court has been all over the place on this issue, so citing one example that supports your cause is disingenuous at best. Not to mention, the Supreme Court is not the highest authority in the land, the Constitution is, and the Court does not have a monopoly on Constitutional interpretation (see for instance the response of the executive and legislative branches to Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessey v. Ferguson.)
This has been an enlightening exchange in that by equating religion with evil you have finally come out of the closet. Perhaps there is some hope for you yet in that you bother to read a site devoted to religion and the public square. Maybe there is a tincture of doubt underlying your hatred for religion….
October 13th, 2012 | 1:12 pm
Mrs. Jackson: We applaud you.
I’m glad. So if I get this straight, you disapprove of Abraham’s willingness to kill Isaac?
Mrs. Jackson: Grouping Abraham and Agamemnon together indicates you believe they are both mythical figures so your lack of admiration is hardly noble.
There’s as much evidence for the existence of Agamemnon, as there is for Abraham (nothing beyond a few stories). That doesn’t mean that the Trojan War (for which there is solid evidence) was fought over Helen. It was fought over trade. But if you insist, I will throw in a non-mythological character: I also disapprove of Andrea Yeates.
Mrs. Jackson: No outcry? Really? Challenging it (unsuccessfully) in court all the way to the California Supreme constitutes no outcry?
Nothing compared to the trumped-up outrage we witnessed in the first quarter of this year. Remember that the GOP controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency, and could easily have passed a pre-emption law (a.k.a. the Blunt Amendment). But there was no outcry, thus no response.
Mrs. Jackson: This post is about Biden lying -see above. You are the one who introduced the quaint notion the Catholic Bishops “picked this fight.”
I see nothing “above” that proves that Biden lied. Nor did I see anything in the transcript. Kindly quote whatever you think was a lie. And let me stress once again that whether or not Biden lied is completely irrelevant to the fact that the Catholic hierarchy picked this fight.
Mrs. Jackson: If parents kill their children -for any reason- they should have the book thrown at them.
Good. So you oppose such ‘religious freedom’ exemptions. By your own logic, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists could accuse you of being an opponent of ‘religious freedom’, for not allowing them to kill their children by denying them medical care.
Mrs. Jackson: What Biden said is he believes the Catholic Church is right. He believes every abortion, whether by an abortionist or by a pill, kills a child.
Untrue, he accepts the article of faith, but he does not think that religious beliefs should be forced down the throats of other people. Same as a Muslim may think that you are going to hell for not being a Muslim, but not do you a “favor” by forcing conversion on you. Let me quote someone by the name of Mitt Romney, who explained it rather well in 1994: “My personal beliefs, or the personal beliefs of any other person, should not be brought into a political campaign. (…) I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me, one of which is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a very dear, close family-relative who died of an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family held to the view that we can believe as we wish, but we will not force our beliefs on other people. And you will not see me wavering on that, or be multiple choice.”
Mrs. Jackson: You are upset about religious exemptions being used in child homicide cases.
I oppose “religious exemptions” of any kind, for several reasons. Number one is that I oppose moral relativism. If a law is a good law, then it ought to be applied to all. It can’t be a good law for some and a bad one for others. Number two is that I oppose the idea that religion should get people privileges. Number three is that I oppose the anarchy that results from people opting out of laws, based on their own beliefs. Number four is that it is discrimination against non-believers and non-religious conduct. A woman was recently sentenced to 99 years in prison for abusing her child. Is her fault the fact that she abused a child, or the fact that she did not have a religious excuse for it? According to religious exemption laws, the latter.
October 13th, 2012 | 1:18 pm
Publius: Max, you despise people who kill their children for the sake of a religion, but you are fine and dandy with people who abort (aka kill) their children for non-religious reasons.
I’ve never heard of aborting a child. You can only abort a process, like a pregnancy. That’s not killing, as a fertilized egg is not a child, ergo, it’s not killing a child.
Matthew: And Maximilian, it is not true that the First Amendment only protects belief. That is crazy.
In that case, Catholic and ultraconvervative Justice Antonin Scalia is “crazy”.
Matthew: The government cannot force someone to work on her Sabbath by withholding unemployment benefits if she does not.
Sherbert was rightly gutted by Employment Division.
Matthew: The government cannot force children to recite the pledge of allegiance if it goes against their religion.
The prohibition on compelled speech has nothing to do with religion. The government couldn’t force a non-religious child to recite the Pledge either.
Matthew: The government cannot force parents to send their children to high school if it violates their religious beliefs.
The right to control the education of one’s children is a fundamental right, and has nothing to do with religion.
Matthew: And the Religious Freedom Restoration Act clearly protects conduct against infringement by the federal government
That’s not the First Amendment, it’s a ridiculous law passed by Congress – the very same institution that mandated that states make religious exemptions to their child homicide laws. So if you’ll pardon me, I will not be looking to Congress for moral guidance.
Matthew: thus the Supreme Court has ruled that it can protect sacramental use of a controlled substance, which clearly is conduct.
The selfsame Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division that the First Amendment (which is what we were talking about) does not protect sacramental use of illegal drugs.
October 13th, 2012 | 4:11 pm
The end of my comment was “as though otherwise the government would have the ability to enforce a prohibition of the thinking of certain thoughts.” It is stupid for the government to think it is giving you a “right” to do what it has no way of restricting you from doing, or even knowing you are doing, as in what thoughts you think. Having to pass a governmental religious test in order to hold public office is prohibited because that would be in violation the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” not because it isn’t stupid for the government to claim it has granted us a “right” when that right is to do what government has no way of preventing us from doing or even knowing we are doing, as in what thoughts we think in terms of religion.
Right. One can’t get away with murder using the defense that “According to my religion, murder is OK.”
Of course, one can get away with murder if a state religion has been established the doctrines of which do approve of murder under certain circumstances, which is currently the case under the reigning atheocracy. According to its atheism, since humanity is no more than the accidental, unintended excretion of mindless, purposeless processes, it has no God-given, inalienable rights. If Caesar sanctions the murder of certain innocent human beings, there is no higher authority to which one can appeal. Well over fifty million children have been given the death penalty, most often for the “crime” of being inconvenient, although in a few instances they are punished for the crimes of their fathers, as though murdering babies will somehow “un-rape” their mothers.
And God only knows how many elderly and sick will end up being hastened to deaths that were not really from natural causes, but were instead the intended result of end-of-life “care.” The days are coming when (and it seems to many that they are here already), if you become enough of a burden or inconvenience, even though you are not at the end of your natural life, there are medical professionals who will put you there as they administer end-of-life “care,” which often amounts to deprivation of nutrition and hydration, and a little over-sedation. It should not surprise anyone that a medical profession that tolerates within it ranks members who engage in homicidal attacks on babies old enough to survive in the newborn intensive care unit, would also tolerate within its ranks those who administer such “care” to those who have become a burden.
The remarks Maximilian and others on this forum make clear that there is no longer any consensus about the true nature of humanity nor the fundamental purpose of government. For some, religious freedom is a sacred right. For others, religious freedom is not a right but merely a way to allow evil.
For some, since humanity preceded the state and brought it into existence, the state exists for humanity, not humanity for the state. Therefore any legitimate rights of the state are derived from the purpose for which humanity establishes it, which is to protect the natural rights of humanity, which included the rights to life and liberty according to the nation’s founders. It is evident then that the state simply has no authority to sanction the killing of innocent human beings.
If these basic principles are disregarded, as they must be for atheists, then when they manage to get into power, they acknowledge no “eternal principles” that might limit their authority. “Murder babies in the womb right up to birth – we say that’s ok, or afterward if we say that’s ok. Marriage is whatever we say it is, or nothing at all if that is what we decide. Humanity is for the state, not the reverse, and only has the rights we say it has; it is our herd to manage as we see fit.” And we have already seen that this management will be according to the “principles” of cold, hard, heartless, ruthless and godless social engineering that will continue to be lethal to millions of innocent human beings.
Atheism is a faith based belief. It must be – one can’t prove God isn’t there. Beliefs about God that are taken faith are in some sense religious beliefs. It is clear that the reigning atheocracy is hostile to other faith-based belief systems, has in many respects established its beliefs as the state religion, and relentlessly seeks an ever increasing imposition of its doctrines on the rest of us.
Our irreconcilable differences regarding the true nature of humanity and the very purpose of government must eventually reach a point of crisis. This is not without precedent. Consider the thought of Abraham Lincoln concerning a nation divided over irreconcilable differences regarding fundamental principles:
America’s current irreconcilable differences are essentially of the same kind as those of which Lincoln spoke: core beliefs regarding the essential dignity and worth of any and every human being and regarding the very nature and purpose of human government.
For more thoughts on this see my post tagged “July 17th, 2012 | 12:26 pm” at:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/07/16/post-comfortable-christianity/
October 13th, 2012 | 5:53 pm
Publius: Max, so you can exercise a belief but you cannot exercise conduct consonant with your belief. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Jehovah’s Witnesses can believe that blood transfusions are a sin, they can’t kill their children by denying them blood transfusions. Sounds eminently sensible.
Publius: Apparently religious freedom is fine as long as it is confined within the confines of your mind.
As long as you are not violating the law. Not a novel concept.
Publius: This has been an enlightening exchange in that by equating religion with evil
And again you ignore my response: “Not religion in general. I love Quakers. I despise people who kill their children for the sake of a religion.”
October 13th, 2012 | 6:14 pm
Max, that’s right, you are just killing a “process.” How scientific … Tell that to the parents of a pre-mature “process.” Great way to separate yourself from the reality of abortion. You are the poster child for our brave, new world….
October 13th, 2012 | 7:39 pm
Good grief, Maximilian. Stop citing Employment Division v Smith. No one in his right mind thinks that case was righly decided. And the Supreme Court will walk back from it. (Didn’t they already walk back a little from it in Hosanna-Tabor!?) Heck, I was a stupid sophomore in college and remember reading about Smith and realizing it was wrong and writing a paper about it. That’s why Congress passed bipartisan legislation by large margins to undo it (although I recognize that Congress’s attempt failed with respect to the states). Smith was wrapped up in the “war on drugs” and that’s the reason it came out that way.
And the RFRA is very relevant here, because the HHS is a federal mandate.
October 13th, 2012 | 7:52 pm
Harry: It is stupid for the government to think it is giving you a “right” to do what it has no way of restricting you from doing,
At the time, governments had always restricted the freedom of conscience. Even in such localities where a multitude of religions were tolerated, like the imperial free cities, you would be in serious trouble if you denied the truth of Christianity and proclaimed yourself an atheist.
Harry: For some, religious freedom is a sacred right.
We still don’t know what it is. Mrs. Jackson has repudiated any notion that “religious freedom” should allow Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses to deny their children life-saving medical care, but you have yet to tell us what your opinion is. You respond approvingly to the Supreme Court upholding a ban on polygamy. Any “sacred right” to conduct based on religious freedom has to be severely limited.
Harry: If these basic principles are disregarded, as they must be for atheists
Excuse me, but your argument for this principle was that humanity precedes the state. Atheists don’t actually deny that.
Harry: Atheism is a faith based belief. It must be – one can’t prove God isn’t there.
And you can’t prove that I don’t have a nuclear missile silo in my back yard, or that there is a celestial teapot somewhere in space, but what are the odds? May I remark how ironic it is that theists attack me for not having a religion, and then proceed to declare that atheism is a religion?
Harry: Consider the thought of Abraham Lincoln
Does he count as one of the dreaded atheists? After all, he was called an “infidel” by his electoral opponent, wouldn’t join a church and was at best (from your perspective) a deist.
Publius: Max, that’s right, you are just killing a “process.”
You were the one who used the verb ‘to abort’. You can’t abort a person, can you? It’s called abortion, because it’s an abortion of the process called pregnancy.
Publius: Great way to separate yourself from the reality of abortion.
I do not need to separate myself from the reality of abortion. I wholeheartedly endorse it. A fertilized egg and an early embryo have no moral value to me. On the other hand, actual children don’t, so I don’t want them killed by Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists for their religion. Will you kindly tell us whether you support religious freedom exemptions to child abuse and homicide laws, so that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists can legally deny their children life-saving medical care and blood transfusions respectively?
October 14th, 2012 | 5:53 am
Max, “actual children don’t” have any moral value to you. Wow. You are more of a spokesman for the culture of death than I thought.
Your “wholehearted” endorsement of abortion (because it does not kill any “actual children”) is of course a myth, as the frontiers of “viability” continue to recede, rendering more and more dead “actual children.”
October 14th, 2012 | 9:03 am
Hello, Maximilian,
Nor do they deny the earth is round, for which I congratulate them. The reason atheists must deny the principles our nation was founded upon is that those principles are derived from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” My argument was that “According to … atheism, since humanity is no more than the accidental, unintended excretion of mindless, purposeless processes, it has no God-given, inalienable rights.”
Atheism is the fastest growing and by far the largest organized religion in America. The speed with which it is making the entire government its organization, and making atheism the de facto state religion, is truly amazing. You and other congregants with your lack of subtlety reveal its religious zealotry. For that I am grateful.
October 14th, 2012 | 9:58 am
Matthew
Do you think Reynolds v United States was rightly decided? Or Gillette v. United States?
Is there not a danger that allowing religion to be used as a cloak for evading the general laws applicable to all citizens is to turn faith into faction and to encourage a form of communitarianism, with ethnic and religious solidarities and allegiances threatening to override republican unity. If the rights of citizens are to vary in accordance with their religious affiliations, how is the republic one and indivisible?
October 14th, 2012 | 10:18 am
Let me make clear that it is not the fastest growing in terms of the number of members it has. Most Americans believe in God. It is just that it is the religion of most of America’s minority ruling class. What I meant was that it is the fastest growing in terms of the growth of its organization, as it is speedily making the government its own organization.
Note also that this minority – the atheistic ruling class – must continually thwart the democratic process by having judges declare that the will of the people as expressed in referendums is unconstitutional. It imposed its disregard for human life by having its Supreme Court justices strike down the laws protecting the life of the child in the womb that were in place in the vast majority of the states at the time Roe was handed down. These laws had been enacted by the elected representatives of the people through the democratic process. It wasn’t going to get rid of them using the democratic process.
They tried. After a decade of work, they had succeeded in “legalizing” abortion in only about a half dozen states, but, much to their dismay, those few were considering the repeal of their new laws allowing abortion; too many of the citizenry of those states had become aware of the grisly nature of abortion and realized the public had been bamboozled. The New York state legislature actually did repeal their new law but that was vetoed by atheocrat Nelson Rockefeller. Frustrated atheocrats needed a shortcut – one that wouldn’t have to deal with the moral sensitivities of the people, which is a huge obstacle to implementing the agenda of the atheocracy. Roe was that shortcut. From then on Pro-Lifers were told again and again that the abortion question had been settled by the Supreme Court. The Pro-Lifers knew it had been settled like the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision settled the slavery question, which is to say the Supreme Court had added a large amount of fuel to the fire and doused it in gasoline.
October 14th, 2012 | 12:01 pm
Matthew: Good grief, Maximilian. Stop citing Employment Division v Smith. No one in his right mind thinks that case was righly decided. And the Supreme Court will walk back from it.
I understand, you don’t like the decision, and want people to stop citing it, because it’s lethal to your case. But be sure, when people discover what is legal under “religious freedom”, they are generally nauseated – even advocate Mrs. Jackson on this very thread. And you, along with Harry and Publius have, despite my repeated invitations, thus far refrained from commenting on whether you think Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists should be allowed to deny their children life-saving blood transfusions and medical treatment.
Matthew: (Didn’t they already walk back a little from it in Hosanna-Tabor!?)
Not at all. One is about a private right to run roughshod over any law that you don’t like, the other is about a rather narrow exemption to one small part of labor law for proper churches.
Matthew: Heck, I was a stupid sophomore in college and remember reading about Smith and realizing it was wrong and writing a paper about it.
An excellent practical way to show you why you were wrong, would be to give you and F. Then, when you complain about it, tell you: “Sorry, my religion tells me to give an F to anyone who uses the words ‘religious freedom’.” Since you believe that religious people are above the law, they certainly are above any university regulation.
Matthew: That’s why Congress passed bipartisan legislation by large margins to undo it
So Congress, in its wisdom, decided to try to overturn Employment Division. Congress, also in its wisdom, in 1974 mandated that states make religious exemptions to their child homicide and abuse laws.
Matthew: And the RFRA is very relevant here, because the HHS is a federal mandate.
It’s completely irrelevant here, because from the very beginning, I have been refuting people who claim that the contraceptive mandate is against the First Amendment. It may be against a law passed by the organ of misgovernment called Congress (which also thinks that denying children medical care for religious reasons is fine). It may also be against the decrees of the Ayatollah Khomeini. But either are irrelevant here.
Matthew: Smith was wrapped up in the “war on drugs” and that’s the reason it came out that way.
Are you seriously suggesting that the court was more hard-line on the question of drugs than the state of Oregon, or Congress? No, Matthew, Smith was wrapped in the discrimination, anarchy and moral relativism advocated by supporters of religious privilege. The sense of entitlement is absolutely astonishing. Do I even need to refer to what some faith-based folks are suing to do in New York? It is so nauseating that I will not even mention it. But not being religious, you would rightly get 30-60 years, but not only is it legal, they are now suing to prevent informed consent for parents. That’s the true face of the privilege disguised as ‘religious freedom’.
October 14th, 2012 | 2:15 pm
Publius: Max, “actual children don’t” have any moral value to you. Wow. You are more of a spokesman for the culture of death than I thought… Your “wholehearted” endorsement of abortion (because it does not kill any “actual children”)
Helpful note: when attempting to twist my words, it’s best if you don’t acknowledge that you understood perfectly well what I actually meant in the very same comment. Of course it should have been “actual children do” – the rest of my comment wouldn’t otherwise make sense. After all, I said that I strongly oppose people killing their children by denying them medical care for religious reasons. Do you agree or disagree?
Harry: The reason atheists must deny the principles our nation was founded upon is that those principles are derived from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”
An atheist can believe in natural law. And a theist can deny it. It’s somewhat more complicated than expressed in a polemical and political document. Jefferson was a deist to boot, so there you have it.
Harry: My argument was that “According to … atheism, since humanity is no more than the accidental, unintended excretion of mindless, purposeless processes, it has no God-given, inalienable rights.”
Actually, you also asserted that atheists believe that humans exist to serve the state: “Humanity is for the state, not the reverse.” Since your whole argument was that the state exists to serve humanity because it postdates humanity, how can you claim that atheists disagree with this?
Harry: You and other congregants with your lack of subtlety reveal its religious zealotry.
Where do we congregate, to be congregants?
Harry: It is just that it is the religion of most of America’s minority ruling class.
We’re up to one member of Congress out of 535. I don’t believe .2% is a majority, though I may be wrong.
Harry: Note also that this minority – the atheistic ruling class – must continually thwart the democratic process by having judges declare that the will of the people as expressed in referendums is unconstitutional. It imposed its disregard for human life by having its Supreme Court justices strike down
Anti-abortion laws prior to 1973 were enacted by the people’s elected representatives, not through referenda. In the present thread, the only people advocating that the Supreme Court thwart the people’s will by striking down a mandate instituted by the people’s elected representatives are not atheists.
Harry: The New York state legislature actually did repeal their new law but that was vetoed by atheocrat Nelson Rockefeller.
Do you have any evidence that Nelson Rockefeller was an atheist? And an ‘atheocrat’, whatever that means.
October 14th, 2012 | 2:17 pm
Max, a simple point: religious freedom is not a privilege, it is guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. You may hate religion, but I am afraid until you and your fellow haters amend the Constitution, you’re out of luck.
I’m curious as to the source of your hatred — there has to be more to it than the alleged “war against children” on the part of Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists. Why the hatred?
October 14th, 2012 | 4:05 pm
To answer some questions posed at me by Michael and Maximilian:
I think Gillette v United States was wrongly decided. It seems fairly unconscionable that the state can compel someone to fight in a war he morally opposes, especially if that moral opposition is religious in nature. Imagine compelling a Muslim to fight against a Muslim country, or a Jew to fight against Israel, or a Catholic to fight against the Holy See (far-fetched, I know, but you get the point.) Gillette is a very nationalistic decision, which is not surprising from the Supreme Court, of course.
Reynolds is a tough case. I could see it going either way. Again, it is very nationalistic, attempting to stamp out a minority religion’s practice. The state shouldn’t recognize polygamy (i.e., shouldn’t grant marriage licenses if a man is already married), but if a man wants to have multiple wives through a religous ceremony or ceremonies, should the state really be able to stop that? I don’t know. That’s a tough question.
The issue of denying medical care to children based on religious reasons is a red herring. Neither the HHS mandate, nor Reynolds, nor Gillette, nor Smith, nor almost any other free exercise case involves putting a life at risk. You guys might as well ask whether the state should be able to outlaw human sacrifice if done for religious reasons. In any event, in extreme cases, I think state involvement can be justified because children are at issue. Not sure the Jehovah Witness-type cases are always that extreme (although the extreme ones will get the press).
Maximilian, Hosanna-Tabor blew a major hole in Smith. The Court in Hosanna-Tabor conceded that the ADA was a valid and neutral law of general applicability. Yet it wrote a constitutional exception to it. This is directly contrary to Smith, or at least to your reading of Smith. True, the Court tried to distinguish the two cases by saying that Smith involved government regulation of “only outward physical acts” while Hosanna-Tabor involved governmental interference with internal church decisions that affected the faith and mission of the church. That’s a distinction without a difference. One could just as easily say that firing the minister at issue in Hosanna-Tabor was an outward physical act. And one could just as easily say that the sacramental rite at issue in Smith was a matter of the faith and mission of the Native American church. Certainly, telling Catholic institutions that they need to provide a service that contradicts their religious teachings interferes with internal Church control over its faith and mission and teaching.
October 14th, 2012 | 5:53 pm
Ok Maxy, you have about thirty things you want me to comment on. Let’s start with this bloomer of yours:
“Publius: ‘Max, you despise people who kill their children for the sake of a religion, but you are fine and dandy with people who abort (aka kill) their children for non-religious reasons.’
“I’ve never heard of aborting a child. You can only abort a process, like a pregnancy. That’s not killing, as a fertilized egg is not a child, ergo, it’s not killing a child.”
Evidently Maxy, you’ve never heard of partial birth abortion.
“Mrs. Jackson: ‘Grouping Abraham and Agamemnon together indicates you believe they are both mythical figures so your lack of admiration is hardly noble.’
“There’s as much evidence for the existence of Agamemnon, as there is for Abraham (nothing beyond a few stories). That doesn’t mean that the Trojan War (for which there is solid evidence) was fought over Helen. It was fought over trade. But if you insist, I will throw in a non-mythological character: I also disapprove of Andrea Yeates.”
Andrea Yeates? You place a mentally ill woman who strangled her 5 kids -a few of them fighting her hard in return – on the same level as Abraham, the Father of Faith?
And then you wonder why we think your hatred of religion is truly ugly?
As for Abraham, the Father of Faith. Abraham is an historical figure not a Greek myth who lived at the time when other gods demanded the sacrifice of first born sons. Now this sounds silly or even abusive to those who do not believe in God, but let’s ignore your complaints and continue, the Bible tells us, Abraham trusted God completely. God told Abraham to take Issac to Mount Moriah(?) to sacrifice him. Issac even carried the wood for the fire which is later echoed by God’s own Son carrying His cross to His execution. Abraham prepared Issac for sacrifice, yet God intervened to demonstrate that He did not demand human sacrifice from his people.
God has always been pro-life.
Per:
“Mrs. Jackson: If parents kill their children -for any reason- they should have the book thrown at them.
“Good. So you oppose such ‘religious freedom’ exemptions. By your own logic, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists could accuse you of being an opponent of ‘religious freedom’, for not allowing them to kill their children by denying them medical care.”
You know Maxy, you really don’t possess much nuanced thinking do you. I said “parents who kill”. A Christian Scientist or a Jehovah’s Witness believes they are not killing their children when they choose not to give them medical attention. They are not intentionally *killing* their child. This is probably why many states have religious exemptions as intent does come into play with all murder cases.
Per:
“Mrs. Jackson: ‘What Biden said is he believes the Catholic Church is right. He believes every abortion, whether by an abortionist or by a pill, kills a child.’
“Untrue, he accepts the article of faith, but he does not think that religious beliefs should be forced down the throats of other people.”
Sorry it’s true. Biden said he believes life begins at conception. He also said he is not going to force his belief on any woman.
But he will force the HHS mandate with its life-ending practices on the Catholic Church as well as to quote you – “down the throats” all of his fellow Catholics.
And it is because of Biden’s willingness to force the HHS mandate with its life-ending practices that he lied about it during the debate. You keep asking about where in the transcript Biden lied- Why don’t you try reading the actual post? But here it is:
“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”
This is a lie. If Biden doesn’t know this to be a lie, then he doesn’t even understand the signature legislation of his administration as well as the complaints of the hierarchy of his own Church which has taken the historic move of suing them.
The correct answer Biden needed to give was he believes life “begins at birth” and this is why he has no problem with the HHS mandate.
Maxy, you have several other things you want me to weigh in on, please list them again and maybe I will.
Publius, Harry, you guys are awesome.
October 14th, 2012 | 8:06 pm
God’s laws, whichever of the millions of the world’s gods you mean
That’s easy. The one that gets capitalized because it is qualitatively different. The one the pagan Greeks called “the unknown God” or that other pagan philosophers saw a being behind their plethora of nature deities.
Of course, God doesn’t lay down “laws” in the sense of positive law, but rather just is the good embodied by natural law.
October 15th, 2012 | 2:04 am
Actually, Biden has it right, and the bishops have it wrong. Their claims that the health law violates religious liberty are based on a “big lie”–a gross falsification constantly repeated and embellished to lend credibility. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences.
Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religions forbid payments of money to the government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.
The second choice does not amount to “violating” the law and paying a “fine,” as some suppose. As the law “does not explicitly mandate an employer to offer employees acceptable health insurance”
(http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/EmployerPenalties.pdf), there is no such “mandate” to “violate.” Rather, the law affords employers two options, either of which is as lawful as the other.
Nor are the assessments set so high that paying them would drive employers out of business, as some speculate. The law provides that if a “large employer” (i.e., one with at least 50 employees) chooses not to provide health insurance, it must pay assessments of $2,000 per year per employee after the first 30 employees. That is much less than an employer typically would pay for health insurance. Small employers would pay no assessments at all. Because of this potential saving and because the law affords individuals realistic opportunities to obtain insurance on their own, many employers are considering this option–for reasons entirely unrelated to religion.
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html)
In recently issued commentary on the various options of employers, the National Catholic Bioethics Center acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that the option of not providing health insurance and instead paying assessments is “morally sound.” While also considering this option “unfortunate” in that the insurance employees would find on their own would include coverage the Center deems objectionable, the Center concludes that the employers’ “moral connection” to that coverage would be “remote.” https://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=450&erid=194821
Bottom line: Employers are not forced by the law to act contrary to their consciences. Rather, as recognized by even those who object to some aspects of the insurance the law makes available, the law affords employers with similar objections the morally sound option of not providing such insurance and paying assessments instead.
October 15th, 2012 | 4:08 am
Matthew
I can understand your hesitation over Reynolds.
The contradiction at the heart of liberalism lies in its simultaneous assertion of popular sovereignty and universal human rights.
Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
Now, the much-despised Throne & Altar Conservative had his judge: for him, the ruler of a Christian people must be a faithful son of the Church. This was, at least, a logically consistent position. It is not without interest that some Liberals are now seeking a secular equivalent in the international community and its organs, with the Security Council and the International Criminal Court replacing the Chair of Peter.
October 15th, 2012 | 4:53 am
max,
i still don’t know who/what gets to decide what is and isn’t “sound” reason. the biophysical processes inside your head? why should they have any authority? they are molecules. you are molecules.
you probably know that if reason has evolved, it has evolved for survival purposes. but there’s no necessary connection between reason that aims at survival and reason that aims at truth. why should we trust biophysical processes to show us actual truth, not merely useful facts with survival benefits?
“we have discovered that there are ways to arrive at generally correct conclusions by using our mind in certain ways.”
i don’t understand. 1+1=2 is “generally” correct? genocide is always and everywhere wrong is “generally” correct? did “certain” types of biophysical processes tell you that these things are “generally” correct? can the molecules themselves tell you whether or not they’re behaving “soundly?”
thanks in advance for clarifying.
October 15th, 2012 | 12:14 pm
Mrs. Jackson: It’s much easier to make judgments about people’s mental states in the present, than thousands of years ago. I submit that anyone trying to kill his own child would get his mental state questioned nowadays. Don’t forget that religious experience is private, and that there is no way that anyone can prove that something is an actual command by god. Isaac carrying wood for the fire is not a good justification, as he didn’t even know that he was the one about to be killed.
I understand that you believe that Abraham is a historical figure, in a way that Agamemnon is not. And yet the evidence available to me, suggests that there is as much evidence for both. Perhaps you have further evidence, in which case I would appreciate it if you shared it.
Regarding Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Fault is as good as actual intent. That’s why drunk drivers are sometimes charged with murder. Did they intend to kill? No, but it’s their fault. If I recklessly shoot my gun into random directions, and kill several people, I will be charged with murder. And that is why parents are charged with murder if they fail to seek medical treatment for their children.
It surprises me that someone who spends so much time defending the pro-life position would advocate exemptions to homicide laws. Your comments make it clear that you think that Plan B can (potentially) end a life. That is killing, but a parent denying his child life-saving medical care is not?
Ye Olde: Allah means “the god” in Arabic, “Jupiter” means “God/sky-father” in PIE.
October 15th, 2012 | 12:25 pm
Andrew: i still don’t know who/what gets to decide what is and isn’t “sound” reason.
You give the excellent example of 2+2=4. Who gets to decide that? It’s not a decision, is it?
Andrew: they are molecules. you are molecules.
But we are more than just molecules. Molecules consist of atoms, and atoms consist of quarks, that doesn’t mean that molecules are “just quarks” – they’re more than that. The same for humans.
Andrew: you probably know that if reason has evolved, it has evolved for survival purposes. but there’s no necessary connection between reason that aims at survival and reason that aims at truth.
More complicated brains have evolved, which in turn may be (or may not be) used for reason. I don’t think Neolithic hunters were that interested in reason for either survival or truth. Your broader point is valid, our minds are not naturally interested in the truth – but there’s no trust involved, one simply has to be mindful of cognitive biases.
Andrew: i don’t understand. 1+1=2 is “generally” correct? genocide is always and everywhere wrong is “generally” correct?
1+1=2 is formal logic, and it conclusion follows with certainty. You can make a rock-solid case in informal logic, but there are no proofs in informal logic. My statement was merely reflective of the fact that people are sometimes mistaken in their reasoning, though I would argue that this is the result of not reasoning properly.
October 15th, 2012 | 2:47 pm
It most definitely is not “morally sound” for the government to fine one for refusing to be involved in the provision of abortifacient drugs. While it may be “morally sound” to pay an extortionist who will otherwise force you to participate in killing innocent human beings, that doesn’t make what the extortionist is doing any less evil.
Only if they pay the extortionist.
This issue is about government forcing people to be involved in the taking of innocent human lives or being fined. There is nothing “moraly sound” about that, and it is far more than just “unfortunate,” it is an evil and arrogant imposition of the current regime’s lack of respect for human life on those who have the respect for human life that was upheld for thousands of years by the traditional Western ethic.
October 15th, 2012 | 4:26 pm
max,
wait a second. isn’t “logic” also a biophysical process? why should it aim at “truth?” why is it not, as nietzsche put it, aimed at “untruth?” and how would you know the “right” answer anyway?
what is the difference between sound and unsound reasoning if both are mere biophysical processes?
it’s obvious that biophysical processes just happen — by themselves, they have no power to adjudicate whether their own behavior constitutes sound v. unsound reasoning. it would be like the notes on a piano score deciding whether or not their own arrangement was harmonious v. dissonant. the notes are just notes — they cannot leap off the page to “evaluate themselves,” so to speak.
agree or disagree: if reason is only a biophysical process, then there’s no reason it should be trustworthy at all, not even to conclude what i just concluded.
finally, if single atoms/quarks/equations don’t have “ethics,” why would 7 x 10 ^ 27 atoms/quarks/equations arranged into a human being have “ethics?” if single atoms/quarks/equations are not “alive,” from where does “life” come from? in other words, how can more be derived from less? from where do such “emergent” properties come, as the philosophers put it?
and don’t beg the question by saying that molecules arranged in a certain way become enzymes that all of a sudden “behave” a certain way as if they’re alive. matter as understood by physics is by definition is inanimate — adding more matter in whatever configuration simply doesn’t get you anything more than inanimate matter. unless you invoke “magic” or “god” or “primal forces of evolution.”
thanks for taking the time and sharpening my own thinking. which i suspect is more than a biophysical process….
October 15th, 2012 | 11:31 pm
Max, Why do you see religious freedom as, in your words, “an excuse to do evil”? Is it simply because of those “evil” Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses? There has to be more to it than that . . . Inquiring minds would like to know. Also, why do you spend a remarkable amount of time commenting on a site devoted to religion in the public square? Is it to prevent further “evil”?
October 16th, 2012 | 2:17 am
harry,
Law, by its nature, involves an element of compulsion. To call law “extortion” resolves nothing. Confronted by questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith, the courts have generally ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, torts, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. (E.g., http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html)
When the legislature anticipates that application of such laws may put some individuals in moral binds, the legislature may, as a matter of grace (not constitutional compulsion), provide exemptions or otherwise accommodate conscientious objectors. In doing so, the legislature need not offer the objector a free pass. For instance, in years past, we have not allowed conscientious objectors simply to skip military service for “free”; rather, we have required them to provide alternative service in noncombatant roles or useful civilian work.
The real question here then is not so much whether the First Amendment precludes the government from enacting and enforcing the generally applicable laws regarding availability of health insurance (it does not), but rather whether there is any need to exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences. Since the law already affords employers choices by which they can avoid acting contrary to their consciences, there is no need for an exemption. They may not like paying money to the government and they may not like what the government does with the money, but those are garden variety gripes common to most taxpayers. Such gripes hardly amount to being forced to act contrary to one’s conscience.
The bishops’ invocation of “religious liberty” is but a ploy to rile up their followers so they can achieve the political aim of gaining an exemption that allows employers to limit their employees’ choices to those conforming to the employers’ religious beliefs. Their aim is not religious liberty for themselves (they already have that), but rather power over their employees.
October 16th, 2012 | 2:26 pm
Doug,
“The bishops’ invocation of “religious liberty” is but a ploy to rile up their followers so they can achieve the political aim of gaining an exemption that allows employers to limit their employees’ choices to those conforming to the employers’ religious beliefs. Their aim is not religious liberty for themselves (they already have that), but rather power over their employees.”
Oh, well thanks for setting us all straight on that Doug. I mean, here am I thinking that dozens of institutions, both Catholic and non-Catholic, are suing the administration for its infringement on their First Amendment liberties, and you come along to tell me that really they just want “power” over their employees and all of the arguments they are making are just a cover for their “real” views. Gee, can I play too?
There is no rational reason for this mandate to exist at all. In a report released in 2009, the CDC interviewed thousands of women who had unplanned pregnancies between 1970 and 1999, and asked them why they had not used contraception at the time they had conceived. The percentage of women who had claimed a lack of access to contraception as a reason? Zero. That same report also found that 99% of sexually active women of child-bearing age had used contraception at some point. In other words, lack of access to contraception is hardly some sort of crisis that needs to be dealt with at all, let alone by forcing employers to violate their consciences. When Nancy Pelosi tells us that 98% of Catholics have used contraception (so that the government can like totally force Catholic agencies to materially support something their Church teaches to be wrong), she is sawing off the branch she is sitting on. If 98% of Catholic women really do use contraception, then doesn’t that strong suggest that they already have access to it?
You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that plenty of people who support the Obama administration have blasted the mandate, for reasons that are as simple as that it is totally unnecessary. Contraception is widely available, relatively inexpensive, and even fully-subsidized for those below the poverty line. Women working at a Catholic agency could easily go to their nearest drug store and pay for contraception out of pocket. According to Planned Parenthood, contraception costs about two dollars a day, which is to say, less than the cost of a latte for your average latte liberal.
Mandating coverage of contraception has nothing to do with providing a hedge against risk, which is the whole point of insurance, but it sure is a nice little payback for the Pharmaceutical lobby which backed Obamacare:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-biggest-beneficiary-of-the-contraception-mandate-drug-companies/254048/
What’s more, the Obama administration has granted thousand of waivers to various companies so they don’t have to comply with certain aspects of the employer mandate. Many of these companies have union ties, and we all know how much the unions went to bat to get Obamacare across the finish line. So the Obama administration will grant waivers to companies concerned by what the employer mandate will do to their bottom line, but to people with principled objections rooted in the First Amendment? Not so much.
This whole mandate is a solution to a problem that exists solely in the minds of the Obama administration. How do we distract voters from our manifest failures in office and motivate our dispirited base? Simple. Let’s provide some more infantilizing hand outs that will do nothing except drive up the cost of insurance while at the same time sitting back and allowing our allies to demonize anyone who disagrees with this farcical campaign as being part of some sort of “War On Women.”
Oh, and I find it amusing that you are so blase about religious institutions dropping their health insurance, which as the article you linked to noted, often provides better coverage at more competitive rates than what their employees can find on the current individual market. But it appears that aggressively prosecuting the culture wars seems to take precedence over making sure people have access to quality, affordable health insurance for both you and the Obama administration.
October 16th, 2012 | 4:28 pm
Publius: Max, Why do you see religious freedom as, in your words, “an excuse to do evil”?
When used to engage in illegal practices, that’s what it is. We did not criminalize these practices because they are good, but because they are evil. Hence, I see no need for exceptions in any case whatsoever.
Publius: Also, why do you spend a remarkable amount of time commenting on a site devoted to religion in the public square? Is it to prevent further “evil”?
No, that is unrealistic. This is a matter that interests me, and I enjoy debating this with individuals who are more skilled in defending religion than the average believer. It also helps me become more skilled in this particular form of debate.
Matthew: You touted the RFRA passed by Congress as a reason for Smith’s error, it is only fair for me to point out other things passed by Congress. If that be right which Congress says is right, then there is no wrong, to paraphrase Shakespeare. I am rather curious as to your limiting principle of when religious belief trumps the law. Is Reynolds truly an extreme case? Is civil recognition of Reynolds an extreme case?
As for Hosanna-Tabor, it does not detract one bit from Smith. None of the examples on this thread, nor the contraceptive mandate, infringe on a matter of “internal church decisions” – let alone the ministerial exception. Churches are exempt from the mandate, and hospitals and schools are not churches. While not pleased, I can live with it.
October 17th, 2012 | 1:51 am
Tim,
You are offering policy arguments against the need or wisdom of the law providing access to contraception–even though that debate is over and the law has been passed–rather than addressing the issue of this post and my comment, i.e., whether the law forces employers to act contrary to their religious beliefs, as the bishops contend.
October 17th, 2012 | 11:09 am
The “law” (an unjust law is no law at all) is an attempt to coerce them with the threat of severe financial penalties into acting contrary to their religious beliefs, contrary to their common sense, contrary to the scientific evidence that indicates abortifacients take the lives of innocent human beings, contrary to the principle of America’s Founders that the very purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of humanity — the first of which is the right to life itself, and into acting contrary to their natural human instinct to protect the lives of the young of our own kind.
Other than that the “law” is just peachy.
October 17th, 2012 | 1:40 pm
Doug,
First of all, there was no “law” passed, it was a regulation imposed by the HHS that could be rescinded by a future administration without having to repeal the entirety of the law. Secondly, you simply assert that this regulation is about “providing access” to something that even Nancy Pelosi admits everyone already has access to. I mean, 98% of Catholic women already use contraception, right? So why do we need this mandate? Oh yeah, to demonize Catholic Bishops–you know “the Other” for the base of the Democratic Party–and to rile up the base in what is proving to be a difficult re-election campaign for Obama.
And given the facts I presented in my last post–which you don’t bother to dispute–then it is very likely that this mandate runs afoul of the RFRA at the very least. Furthermore, a judge in Colorado has already ruled against the administration on behalf of a business owner in that state, so your confidence that the mandate does not force employers to violate their consciences seems misplaced.
October 18th, 2012 | 8:22 pm
max,
in case you’re still reading, here’s ed feser on thomas nagel’s book, excerpted from today’s on the square article:
Nagel argues that it is impossible to explain our rational capacities in terms of the consciousness we share with lower animals; that consciousness in turn cannot easily be explained in reductive terms of any sort, and certainly not via a specifically materialist form of reductionism; that even the origin of life from inorganic chemical processes has not been given a plausible naturalistic explanation; and that in each case we need to reconsider the possibility of a teleological account.
surely you don’t believe in teleology?
October 19th, 2012 | 2:18 pm
The time has come to make our voices heard.
Rallies against the HHS mandate will take place at noon tomorrow, Saturday, October 20, at more than 140 locations around the country.
http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/locations/
Let’s get the message out!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact