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!

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?

First of all, there was no “law” passed, it was a regulation imposed by the HHS that could be rescinded by a future administration without having to repeal the entirety of the law.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.

… 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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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….