Legislating the Constitution Down
Oct 4, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
Editor’s Note: The First Things website does many things. We provide one and often two (and sometimes even three) new articles each day. Our First Thoughts blog engages current issues. You have access to many articles in the current issue of First Things. Our archive is filled with more than twenty years of great essays.
All of this costs money to produce, edit, and maintain, and unlike First Things magazine we receive no subscription income from you to underwrite the expense. So if you are a regular reader, please donate to our Fall campaign. It’s easy to do. Just click here to donate now.
_______
A big story getting barely any press outside of Catholic media is that the government is getting ready to press ahead with policies intended—note the word, intended—to intrude upon one of the fundamental rights on which the nation was built: the freedom of religion.
Under the 2010 health care law colloquially known as “Obamacare,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human services is determinedly plowing forward with its so-called “contraceptive mandate”—all private health plans are to cover contraception and sterilization as “preventive services” for women, and the mandate includes individuals and groups with moral or religious objections.
This is a policy so clumsily intrusive that even the University of Notre Dame is complaining about it; President Father John Jenkins, C.S.C., in a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, said the mandate places Notre Dame (and, of course, all Catholic colleges) in an “impossible position” of having to defy Church teaching. “[The mandate] would compel Notre Dame to either pay for contraception and sterilization in violation of the church’s moral teaching, or to discontinue our employee and student health care plans in violation of the church’s social teaching,”
The government’s position is that their notion of “women’s health” must trump moral or religious concerns. It seems that one of the most fundamental freedoms provided for by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights ends at the beginning of a double-X chromosome.
Meanwhile, following a ruling by Circuit Judge John Schmidt, Illinois is moving to end a year-to-year adoption services contract with Catholic Charities, after four diocese in the state said they could not, in good conscience, place children in households with two unmarried adults. As in Boston and San Francisco, the church may soon have to exclude itself from offering adoption or placement services in Chicago and elsewhere in the state.
Reading through blog comboxes on these stories, one stood out. A supporter of the mandate who was clearly all out of sympathy for the church suggested sarcastically that Catholics were being asked to carry a heavy cross in giving up “one of their entitlements.”
But here is the question: if a church-based organization has—for decades—served the community through placement assistance for adoption or foster care, and if that service is now to be defined as an “entitlement,” is it one that should be lost or preserved under the constitution? The argument being made is that, since there is no such thing as a “right” to place children for adoption, then there is nothing to protect. But what about the right of a religious organization to be what it is, in its chosen service to a community?
There is no “right” to adopt, of course. For that matter, there is no such thing as a “right” to be married, whether one is hetero-or-homosexual. Yet gay marriage activists will tell you that legalizing same-sex marriage is intrinsically tied into a homosexual couple being “who they are” in society.
Well, all right. I can understand any person, or couple, wanting to be allowed to “be who they are” without government intrusion into their lives. Why, then, should a church have to surrender an activity simply because it is bound to perform it in obedience to its own strictures? Why must a constitutionally protected entity be put in a position by which it must either cease to be what it is, or recede into the background, and outside of the public realm?
This is how America will fade away, not with bursting bombs or tidal waves, but with legislators and courts reshaping the notion of rights and entitlements until they become difficult to tell apart, and then deciding who gets to be who they are, and who must change or be ostracized. “Live and let live” which is a dandy and peaceable philosophy acknowledging differences of opinion and perspective, is being supplanted by “think one way, or else.”
Look, if the government desires to provide women with free contraception and sterilization, it is quite free to codify that dubious benefit under existing medical programs, without mandating participation by any entity at all. Likewise, any legislation concerning any “entitlement” can be written with built-in protections and exemptions for religious service-providers. That so many politicians choose not to include such stated protections—or to write them so narrowly that they are easily unraveled—says a great deal about their commitment to the Bill of Rights, and it portends poorly for our constitutional future.
It seems that believers—particularly Catholics, Evangelical Christians and the Eastern Orthodox—are entitled to enjoy their freedom of religion, but only so far as advancing policies will allow. Thus is a precedent set that may chip away at one right after another—the right to freely assemble; the right to arm oneself; the right to speak one’s mind.
The HHS mandate, and the ruling in Illinois are both indicators that as same-sex marriage advances we will see civil suits brought against churches unwilling to perform homosexual weddings. The courts will likely push back against that encroachment for a while, but once the freedom to publicly practice a religion according to conscience has been penetrated and altered, it will not take long for a new generation of judges—as subject to pressure and sentiment as anyone—to take the easier path and submit to conventional wisdom, churches be damned.
If the government wishes to redefine the enumerated freedoms within our constitution, it demands more than a piece of legislation—even one supported by the growing tyranny of our sentimentalism. Upending fundamental liberties should require an amendment to the constitution. If our politicians are able to erode rights simply by writing policy, and if they can declare “outside the law” those who had previously worked under the protections of the constitution, then the nation is in grave danger of losing its heart, mind and soul.
We are watching the government initiate an erosion of religious freedom, by narrowing the scope of that freedom until the churches are excluded from the public arena, entirely. Freedom of Religion will soon enough become a right that is protected — but only as long as one keeps it to oneself.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Fr. John Jenkins responds to HHS
Catholic Charities loses battle in Illinois
Archbishop Dolan's letter to White House re gay marriage [PDF]
Elizabeth Scalia, Dictatorship of Sentimentalism
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
10.4.2011 | 9:24am
For a well reasoned Catholic response to the mandate to provide so-called preventive services, see Sister Carol Keehan's letter on the Interim Final Rule at the Catholic Health Association website. As of Oct. 4, you can find the link "CHA Comments on Religious Employer Exceptions." http://www.chausa.org/
In the health care sector it's not just the theological and ideological disagreement--opponents want our market share. About 1 in 6 Americans are served by Catholic health care. This time, I believe, Catholic institutions will roll back the tide, but those who want to dismantle Catholic and other faith-based institutions, as Ms. Scalia notes, will persevere.
In the health care sector it's not just the theological and ideological disagreement--opponents want our market share. About 1 in 6 Americans are served by Catholic health care. This time, I believe, Catholic institutions will roll back the tide, but those who want to dismantle Catholic and other faith-based institutions, as Ms. Scalia notes, will persevere.
10.4.2011 | 9:59am
Sue Wilson says:
One has to wonder how close the time is when pastors, priests, and churches will lose the "entitlement" to call abortion and homosexuality sins.
10.4.2011 | 10:43am
Rhinestone Suderman says:
Sue, I think the time is coming when the churches will lose that particular "entitlement" much sooner than anybody expects!
And then, the real fun will begin!
Yes, religious freedom as an "entitlement". . . and, of course, the government can bestow, or take away, entitlements, as it chooses.
And then, the real fun will begin!
Yes, religious freedom as an "entitlement". . . and, of course, the government can bestow, or take away, entitlements, as it chooses.
10.4.2011 | 11:06am
JohnPRoco says:
A much larger issue is approaching than that of Judge Schmidt in Illinois. Pete Stark's (D-CA) HR 1681 "Every Child Deserves a Family Act" 2011 would eliminate Catholic Charities foster care and adoptions across the United States of America and now has 70 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. Here is a Flashy 2 minute video on the Goals of HR 1681:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvscfsqiX8Y
And here is an 18 minute video that delves deeper into HR 1681:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAFfNMbVW7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvscfsqiX8Y
And here is an 18 minute video that delves deeper into HR 1681:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAFfNMbVW7s
10.4.2011 | 11:17am
Marie says:
I have a small hope that Catholic institutions could lead the change against employer-provided health insurance. Only when consumers return to a time when they could each choose which insurance plan they wanted, from a multitude of providers, and see the consequences directly in the benefits and costs, will health care financing be reformed.
My family buys its own insurance. We can now see, like we never did when insurance was an employee benefit, how many errors there are in the costs, and how foolish it is to have insurance pay for every doctor visit instead of us paying out of pocket for regular costs with insurance covering catastrophic and unexpected events. When we insert a layer of middle men (insurance representatives) into every single medical transaction in the country, and a second level of middle men (HR departments) into every medical financing decision, we increase costs and reduce choice.
Notre Dame should end its insurance program for its employees, and increase the employee pay by the amount they were paying in premiums. Let the individuals buy their own insurance, and decide for themselves whether they find it essential that some corporation pay for their birth control pills. Most Americans, even those without moral objections to artificial contraception, have bigger things to worry about with health care than whether their abortion is covered.
My family buys its own insurance. We can now see, like we never did when insurance was an employee benefit, how many errors there are in the costs, and how foolish it is to have insurance pay for every doctor visit instead of us paying out of pocket for regular costs with insurance covering catastrophic and unexpected events. When we insert a layer of middle men (insurance representatives) into every single medical transaction in the country, and a second level of middle men (HR departments) into every medical financing decision, we increase costs and reduce choice.
Notre Dame should end its insurance program for its employees, and increase the employee pay by the amount they were paying in premiums. Let the individuals buy their own insurance, and decide for themselves whether they find it essential that some corporation pay for their birth control pills. Most Americans, even those without moral objections to artificial contraception, have bigger things to worry about with health care than whether their abortion is covered.
10.4.2011 | 11:39am
arty says:
Marie's got a point: when you tie yourself to a system, you will end up with the lowest social common denominator. I receive my health insurance from my employer (one of the 50 states), and I'm awaiting the day where I'll have to decline coverage due to some morally reprehensible state mandate I'll be unable to compromise with.
Good reason to know your neighbors, find a doctor that will let you pay them in eggs and roof repairs.
Good reason to know your neighbors, find a doctor that will let you pay them in eggs and roof repairs.
10.4.2011 | 11:48am
David says:
Michael,
The points you distinguish are well articulated, but are inconsistent with the entire American tradition of nonestablishment. Religiously-motivated political opinions and actions are ubiquitous in American history--including especially the very victory of the non-establishment forces. The Danbury Baptists thought they were doing God's will, as understood from Scripture, in seeking to abolish religious establishments.
Further, religious-based exemptions permeate the Founding era.
The Constitution, as you interpret it, is not the Constitution that we the people adopted. Neither my ancestors nor I have ever consented to the establishment of secularism as our state religion.
The points you distinguish are well articulated, but are inconsistent with the entire American tradition of nonestablishment. Religiously-motivated political opinions and actions are ubiquitous in American history--including especially the very victory of the non-establishment forces. The Danbury Baptists thought they were doing God's will, as understood from Scripture, in seeking to abolish religious establishments.
Further, religious-based exemptions permeate the Founding era.
The Constitution, as you interpret it, is not the Constitution that we the people adopted. Neither my ancestors nor I have ever consented to the establishment of secularism as our state religion.
10.4.2011 | 11:49am
Brian English says:
"(1) firstly, “no establishment” lays down a prohibition, which translates into a limitation on religious freedom – something that confirms the negative character of the notion, since any limitation is a negation; (2) this prohibition is addressed to private individuals in their relations with the public authorities, encompassing the state, territorial authorities, public administration, and public services;"
Completely wrong. The no establishment clause is a limitation on the federal government, not on the individual.
" (3) this prohibition concerns the religious beliefs of individuals, not in order to restrict them, but in order to exclude their intervention in, or impact on, the relations between private individuals and public authorities;"
This is not France. The State is not God here (yet). Religious Americans have just as much right to be involved in politics as anyone else.
"(4) finally, this prohibition obliges individuals to respect common rules in these relations; they cannot exempt themselves from them for religious reasons – which comes down to asserting the primacy of these rules over personal beliefs."
The government has no business using its power of the purse to coerce religious organizations to engage in conduct they find immoral. If an employee at Notre Dame wants insurance coverage that provides for contraception or sterilization, they can go work someplace else. If a gay couple in Illinois wants to adopt a child, they can go to one of the 45 other adoption agencies in Illinois beyond Catholic Charities.
Completely wrong. The no establishment clause is a limitation on the federal government, not on the individual.
" (3) this prohibition concerns the religious beliefs of individuals, not in order to restrict them, but in order to exclude their intervention in, or impact on, the relations between private individuals and public authorities;"
This is not France. The State is not God here (yet). Religious Americans have just as much right to be involved in politics as anyone else.
"(4) finally, this prohibition obliges individuals to respect common rules in these relations; they cannot exempt themselves from them for religious reasons – which comes down to asserting the primacy of these rules over personal beliefs."
The government has no business using its power of the purse to coerce religious organizations to engage in conduct they find immoral. If an employee at Notre Dame wants insurance coverage that provides for contraception or sterilization, they can go work someplace else. If a gay couple in Illinois wants to adopt a child, they can go to one of the 45 other adoption agencies in Illinois beyond Catholic Charities.
10.4.2011 | 11:52am
bobster says:
The First Amendment "analysis" by Michael PS is both fundamentally flawed and disturbing. The Amendment regulates only actions by the government and places no restriction on private activity either in the public or private arena. There are no restrictions on individuals and certainly no "primacy" of government over religious beliefs.
10.4.2011 | 11:53am
Brian English says:
"Sister Carol Keehan's letter on the Interim Final Rule at the Catholic Health Association website. As of Oct. 4, you can find the link "CHA Comments on Religious Employer Exceptions." http://www.chausa.org/"
I wonder if Sr. Keehan will give back her Obamacare signing pen as an act of protest?
I wonder if Sr. Keehan will give back her Obamacare signing pen as an act of protest?
10.4.2011 | 11:56am
Randy says:
America is only less abortion-friendly than Russia or China because of the influence of our churches, Catholic and others. It's not because we're morally superior to the Russians or the Chinese, where females might have five or six abortions in their lifetime. We avoid that in America only because there's a force (still too tiny) pushing back against the killing tide. As bad as we are now, we can be much worse, and apparently that's the direction the White House wants.
10.4.2011 | 11:58am
A.M . says:
Unsure that I am getting al the legal nuances of the issues at hand but could this whole things not help all Catholic institutions to be what they are to be - to be agents to inculcate Catholic values , for its rewards for here and all eternity !
Helping patients , families and employees in the all important areas of forgiveness , for love of Him , in His merits that then becomes a portal for healings as well as prevention of all sorts , offering support, to offer and unite all sufferings, with that of our Lord , to draw down the power and presence of The Holy Spirit , helping persons to be able to offer praise and thus be close to The Father , even in the midst of sufferings ; every room adorned with holy icons and holy water as well as sacramentals , Gregorian chant and Divine Mercy chaplet bringing again healing and peace , driving out powers of evil -esp. around death beds ; the simple pine coffins made by the Trappist monks made available to the families of the deceased ;
Education in means for chastity , natural family planning ( instead of the current new age trends being inculcated ) and families surprised to find the divorce and marital strife levels as well as incidents of cancer dropping down -
could this bill thus serve to bring back life , vigor and sense of the primary mission , to all institutions Catholic !
Helping patients , families and employees in the all important areas of forgiveness , for love of Him , in His merits that then becomes a portal for healings as well as prevention of all sorts , offering support, to offer and unite all sufferings, with that of our Lord , to draw down the power and presence of The Holy Spirit , helping persons to be able to offer praise and thus be close to The Father , even in the midst of sufferings ; every room adorned with holy icons and holy water as well as sacramentals , Gregorian chant and Divine Mercy chaplet bringing again healing and peace , driving out powers of evil -esp. around death beds ; the simple pine coffins made by the Trappist monks made available to the families of the deceased ;
Education in means for chastity , natural family planning ( instead of the current new age trends being inculcated ) and families surprised to find the divorce and marital strife levels as well as incidents of cancer dropping down -
could this bill thus serve to bring back life , vigor and sense of the primary mission , to all institutions Catholic !
10.4.2011 | 12:23pm
David Nickol says:
Even the UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME is sticking up for Catholic teaching??? Who would have thought? :P
In reality, it seems to me that there is a small minority of Catholics who still cling to Church teachings against contraception, and very few in that minority are faced with the decision to use contraceptives themselves. I have read statistics that I believe to be reliable that about 95% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use artificial contraception. I have also seen figures that about 3% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use NFP. Bishops, priests, and nuns may oppose contraception and favor NFP, but they have no dog in the fight.
I am sure people will respond to me by saying that even if *all* Catholic married couples used artificial contraception, that wouldn't make it right. Maybe. But if there is a teaching that "the Church" can't convince more than a few percent of Catholics to follow, or even understand, I would suspect there is something wrong with the teaching.
In reality, it seems to me that there is a small minority of Catholics who still cling to Church teachings against contraception, and very few in that minority are faced with the decision to use contraceptives themselves. I have read statistics that I believe to be reliable that about 95% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use artificial contraception. I have also seen figures that about 3% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use NFP. Bishops, priests, and nuns may oppose contraception and favor NFP, but they have no dog in the fight.
I am sure people will respond to me by saying that even if *all* Catholic married couples used artificial contraception, that wouldn't make it right. Maybe. But if there is a teaching that "the Church" can't convince more than a few percent of Catholics to follow, or even understand, I would suspect there is something wrong with the teaching.
10.4.2011 | 12:49pm
Francis J. Beckwith says:
David writes: "But if there is a teaching that `the Church' can't convince more than a few percent of Catholics to follow, or even understand, I would suspect there is something wrong with the teaching."
That's an odd premise, to believe that the failure to practice a moral command is evidence of its wrongness. Since every moral command has been violated at some time in history, and sometimes by vast numbers of people (including the American South on slavery and Nazi Germany on genocide), according to your reckoning, you should suspect all of them as wrong. Moreover, I am a member of parish where a vast majority of its attendees reject your belief that the failure to practice a moral command is evidence of its wrong. Thus, we would be correct in rejecting your prescription based on that very prescription. So, your view is fundamentally incoherent.
To suggest that the veracity of moral commands ought to be assessed by how widely those commands are followed is like suggesting that property law would be more just if it were authored by burglars.
That's an odd premise, to believe that the failure to practice a moral command is evidence of its wrongness. Since every moral command has been violated at some time in history, and sometimes by vast numbers of people (including the American South on slavery and Nazi Germany on genocide), according to your reckoning, you should suspect all of them as wrong. Moreover, I am a member of parish where a vast majority of its attendees reject your belief that the failure to practice a moral command is evidence of its wrong. Thus, we would be correct in rejecting your prescription based on that very prescription. So, your view is fundamentally incoherent.
To suggest that the veracity of moral commands ought to be assessed by how widely those commands are followed is like suggesting that property law would be more just if it were authored by burglars.
10.4.2011 | 1:01pm
Marie says:
"But if there is a teaching that "the Church" can't convince more than a few percent of Catholics to follow, or even understand, I would suspect there is something wrong with the teaching. "
Like the teaching about loving your neighbor? Or the teaching about gossip? Or the teaching about envy, jealousy, pride, gluttony, sloth, avarice, covetousness?
I don't know of any Catholics that seem to be able to follow all these teachings. The difference with artificial contraception is that many Catholics say out loud that they think it's morally o.k. to go against this teaching. But most Catholics who go against any of the other teachings simply tell themselves privately that it's morally all right, at least at the time of commission. And several of those -- gluttony, avarice, gossip, for example -- are fast joining contraception in being publicly lauded vices.
Like the teaching about loving your neighbor? Or the teaching about gossip? Or the teaching about envy, jealousy, pride, gluttony, sloth, avarice, covetousness?
I don't know of any Catholics that seem to be able to follow all these teachings. The difference with artificial contraception is that many Catholics say out loud that they think it's morally o.k. to go against this teaching. But most Catholics who go against any of the other teachings simply tell themselves privately that it's morally all right, at least at the time of commission. And several of those -- gluttony, avarice, gossip, for example -- are fast joining contraception in being publicly lauded vices.
10.4.2011 | 1:49pm
Steven says:
"But if there is a teaching that `the Church' can't convince more than a few percent of Catholics to follow, or even understand, I would suspect there is something wrong with the teaching."
AP - Near Mt. Sinai, circa 1550 BC:
Recent polls among the Israelites reveal that only about 3 percent of God's Chosen People find the teachings of Moses compelling, and that the majority have opted for idol worship. "After all," said one idol carver, "if Moses can't convince more than a few percent of Israelites to follow, or even understand these Commandments, I would suspect that there is something wrong with the teaching."
AP - Near Mt. Sinai, circa 1550 BC:
Recent polls among the Israelites reveal that only about 3 percent of God's Chosen People find the teachings of Moses compelling, and that the majority have opted for idol worship. "After all," said one idol carver, "if Moses can't convince more than a few percent of Israelites to follow, or even understand these Commandments, I would suspect that there is something wrong with the teaching."
10.4.2011 | 1:58pm
arty says:
Re: D. Nickol and reply by Beckwith:
I too find David Nickol's argument to be rather weak. While I sympathize with what I take to be Nickol's argument that all of us posses some capability for rational thought, and that an argument from the church that is ignored by so many is more a commentary on the church than on its flock, I think in this case that there is solid evidence to suggest that the church is right and the flock (all 97% of them) is wrong.
Just ask yourself, what fundamental beliefs does the logic of modern western culture encourage individual to hold, about themselves, what ways does it encourage them to behave? One important answer, and I'm channeling Philip Rieff here, is that 1. it is impermissible to say "thou shalt not," resulting in a society that contains a radical libertarianism in its mores, even if, ignoring our Nietzsche, we try to preserve the flag of Christianity without the goods.
If the above is true, then I'd argue that we are simply living in an historical moment where church teaching is particularly at odds with the dominant trends of the culture in which we live.
David: your own refrain in commentary is always, "go read the sources," "go read the article," etc. Go read the Theology of the Body, (not its wikipedia entry), come back in three months, and then give us a real argument as to why the practices of the majority are superior to the theologically grounded dogma of the church.
You'd have an argument that isn't trivial on its face.
I too find David Nickol's argument to be rather weak. While I sympathize with what I take to be Nickol's argument that all of us posses some capability for rational thought, and that an argument from the church that is ignored by so many is more a commentary on the church than on its flock, I think in this case that there is solid evidence to suggest that the church is right and the flock (all 97% of them) is wrong.
Just ask yourself, what fundamental beliefs does the logic of modern western culture encourage individual to hold, about themselves, what ways does it encourage them to behave? One important answer, and I'm channeling Philip Rieff here, is that 1. it is impermissible to say "thou shalt not," resulting in a society that contains a radical libertarianism in its mores, even if, ignoring our Nietzsche, we try to preserve the flag of Christianity without the goods.
If the above is true, then I'd argue that we are simply living in an historical moment where church teaching is particularly at odds with the dominant trends of the culture in which we live.
David: your own refrain in commentary is always, "go read the sources," "go read the article," etc. Go read the Theology of the Body, (not its wikipedia entry), come back in three months, and then give us a real argument as to why the practices of the majority are superior to the theologically grounded dogma of the church.
You'd have an argument that isn't trivial on its face.
10.4.2011 | 2:40pm
David Nickol says:
Francis J. Beckwith and arty,
I am not pretending to be an expert here, but I believe there is a notion in Catholic thought that acceptance (or non-acceptance) by the faithful carries some weight. Usury, for example, was condemned by popes and church councils, but the faithful did not heed the condemnations, and the teaching withered and died. There is an example I find very interesting, and that is Acts 15:28-29
*****
‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’”
*****
Here we have a decision from the apostles and the Holy Spirit which would seem to bind Christians to certain dietary laws requiring, in some circumstances, eating only kosher meat. It is not known how long the practice was followed, and there is no authority known that says it shouldn't be followed. But I believe it was Augustine who pointed out it was not followed in his time, and nobody ever has tried to revive it.
I am not arguing by my own lights that the Church's teachings on birth control are wrong. But I am saying there is *something* wrong when so few accept a teaching of the church. You are right to say that even if practically everyone rejected it, it still might be correct. But certainly there is a problem *somewhere* when a teaching is so widely rejected not just by those on whom it places a burden, but by priests who counsel them, and no doubt many bishops as well. Maybe the people are stupid or wicked, maybe the Church is not explaining the teaching adequately, but maybe it is a teaching that goes against people's lived experience of what tolerable and good.
I am not pretending to be an expert here, but I believe there is a notion in Catholic thought that acceptance (or non-acceptance) by the faithful carries some weight. Usury, for example, was condemned by popes and church councils, but the faithful did not heed the condemnations, and the teaching withered and died. There is an example I find very interesting, and that is Acts 15:28-29
*****
‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’”
*****
Here we have a decision from the apostles and the Holy Spirit which would seem to bind Christians to certain dietary laws requiring, in some circumstances, eating only kosher meat. It is not known how long the practice was followed, and there is no authority known that says it shouldn't be followed. But I believe it was Augustine who pointed out it was not followed in his time, and nobody ever has tried to revive it.
I am not arguing by my own lights that the Church's teachings on birth control are wrong. But I am saying there is *something* wrong when so few accept a teaching of the church. You are right to say that even if practically everyone rejected it, it still might be correct. But certainly there is a problem *somewhere* when a teaching is so widely rejected not just by those on whom it places a burden, but by priests who counsel them, and no doubt many bishops as well. Maybe the people are stupid or wicked, maybe the Church is not explaining the teaching adequately, but maybe it is a teaching that goes against people's lived experience of what tolerable and good.
10.4.2011 | 3:35pm
David Nickol says:
arty,
One more quick comment. I don't think the teachings of the Church on contraception rise to the level of dogma. Some claim Humanae Vitae to be infallible, but I believe it is a minority. So it is doctrine, not dogma. It does make a difference.
One more quick comment. I don't think the teachings of the Church on contraception rise to the level of dogma. Some claim Humanae Vitae to be infallible, but I believe it is a minority. So it is doctrine, not dogma. It does make a difference.
10.4.2011 | 3:49pm
Elizabeth says:
Interesting that you brought up the adoption topic. It never ceases to amaze me the hypocrisy there. Catholic adoption agencies are, for the most part, private - as in the pregnant woman chooses to go there. One would assume that if said mother chooses a Catholic adoption agency, she would prefer her child to be raised by a family espousing those same ideals, as is her right. But the government are saying that is not her right. The hypocrisy of course comes in when that same government says that it's perfectly acceptable to kill that same child, but not to have some sort of say in the life he or she will have should she choose to let him/her live. I just don't get it. :/
10.4.2011 | 3:56pm
Randy says:
DN,
It depends on if you think marriage is a sacred vocation, or just a pairs sport.
It depends on if you think marriage is a sacred vocation, or just a pairs sport.
10.4.2011 | 3:56pm
A.M . says:
'When the Spirit of truth comes , He will lead you to all truth .'
That guidance of The Spirit is the promised gift for The Church - whether in timely dietary rules or matters of sexual morality for the protection and benefits of the persons and society at large .
The Church is entrusted to proclaim those truths and if heeded well , well and good ; for thosewho are falling short and suffering the consequences , it serves as the road map, to figure out where things went wrong and to make amends , as well as true repentance for the errors.
Just as The Church's speaking out on unjust usury might have helped to bring more just ways , her truthful guidance in sacredness of marriage , let us hope, would serve to turn the tide , to put out the vast related ill effects in our culture .
That guidance of The Spirit is the promised gift for The Church - whether in timely dietary rules or matters of sexual morality for the protection and benefits of the persons and society at large .
The Church is entrusted to proclaim those truths and if heeded well , well and good ; for thosewho are falling short and suffering the consequences , it serves as the road map, to figure out where things went wrong and to make amends , as well as true repentance for the errors.
Just as The Church's speaking out on unjust usury might have helped to bring more just ways , her truthful guidance in sacredness of marriage , let us hope, would serve to turn the tide , to put out the vast related ill effects in our culture .
10.4.2011 | 4:25pm
David Nickol says:
Elizabeth,
You are incorrect. In private adoptions, the mother has an absolute say as to whether the person or couple the adoption agency feels is right to take the baby actually gets the baby. If the mother wants only a Catholic couple, in a private adoption, she cannot be overridden by the government or the adoption agency. However, in the cases where the government *does* have the say, Catholic Charities is working on behalf of the government, under government license. The birth mother is not involved. She has either had the child taken away from her, or she has given up all control of the child to the state.
You are incorrect. In private adoptions, the mother has an absolute say as to whether the person or couple the adoption agency feels is right to take the baby actually gets the baby. If the mother wants only a Catholic couple, in a private adoption, she cannot be overridden by the government or the adoption agency. However, in the cases where the government *does* have the say, Catholic Charities is working on behalf of the government, under government license. The birth mother is not involved. She has either had the child taken away from her, or she has given up all control of the child to the state.
10.4.2011 | 4:30pm
David Nickol says:
A.M. You say, "The Church's speaking out on unjust usury . . . . "
However, the Church did not forbid *unjust* usury. It forbid *all* usury, as did the Old Testament. Usury is making a loan and charging interest on it (any interest at all, not just too high a rate). If the old Church prohibitions against usury were in effect, you could not take out a mortgage to buy a house, get a car loan, or use a credit card.
However, the Church did not forbid *unjust* usury. It forbid *all* usury, as did the Old Testament. Usury is making a loan and charging interest on it (any interest at all, not just too high a rate). If the old Church prohibitions against usury were in effect, you could not take out a mortgage to buy a house, get a car loan, or use a credit card.
10.4.2011 | 6:05pm
Carson Chittom says:
@ David Nickol, et al.:
Off topic, but I find it fascinating, so I'll mention briefly that anyone interested in what a financial system without usury would look like should google "Islamic banking," as all schools of Islam still forbid usury (though I'm neither Muslim nor a scholar on Islam, so I welcome correction, and I am given to understand that the prohibition is fairly widely ignored).
Off topic, but I find it fascinating, so I'll mention briefly that anyone interested in what a financial system without usury would look like should google "Islamic banking," as all schools of Islam still forbid usury (though I'm neither Muslim nor a scholar on Islam, so I welcome correction, and I am given to understand that the prohibition is fairly widely ignored).
10.4.2011 | 6:42pm
arty says:
David:
re: your distinction between doctrine and dogma. I've got a philosopher friend who likes to say that you can tell when a philosopher has backed himself into a corner, when he resorts to the surefire escape hatch: making a distinction.
The distinction between doctrine and dogma is there, of course, but making the distinction in this case just ignores the really important question: Is it true? If the church's position on contraception is true, then who cares if it is "doctrine" or "dogma"? Since I believe the Catholic position is that truths about the human condition are in fact accessible to public reason (i.e. the "nat" in natural law), then the phrase "we should reject contraception" isn't true because the church says it is, it is true because the church has articulated a reality about the human condition that exists as a matter of fact.
My wife and I practice NFP, and I'm not Catholic. But, I've come to the view that the church's position on contraception is correct on the basis of its abstract argument and on the basis of living out the implications of that argument, which is accessible to reason regardless of whether one accepts the church's own account of the authority of the chair of St. Peter.
Again, the real issue here is whether or not Nietzsche was wrong, that it is impossible to actually live as though Christianity were true, in the modern world. If the 97% are evidence that Nietzsche was correct, then maybe we are looking at evidence for some sort of extreme separatism from the world, but in any event, there's nothing there that is valid evidence on its face, for finding error in church teaching on contraception.
Culture, heal thyself.
re: your distinction between doctrine and dogma. I've got a philosopher friend who likes to say that you can tell when a philosopher has backed himself into a corner, when he resorts to the surefire escape hatch: making a distinction.
The distinction between doctrine and dogma is there, of course, but making the distinction in this case just ignores the really important question: Is it true? If the church's position on contraception is true, then who cares if it is "doctrine" or "dogma"? Since I believe the Catholic position is that truths about the human condition are in fact accessible to public reason (i.e. the "nat" in natural law), then the phrase "we should reject contraception" isn't true because the church says it is, it is true because the church has articulated a reality about the human condition that exists as a matter of fact.
My wife and I practice NFP, and I'm not Catholic. But, I've come to the view that the church's position on contraception is correct on the basis of its abstract argument and on the basis of living out the implications of that argument, which is accessible to reason regardless of whether one accepts the church's own account of the authority of the chair of St. Peter.
Again, the real issue here is whether or not Nietzsche was wrong, that it is impossible to actually live as though Christianity were true, in the modern world. If the 97% are evidence that Nietzsche was correct, then maybe we are looking at evidence for some sort of extreme separatism from the world, but in any event, there's nothing there that is valid evidence on its face, for finding error in church teaching on contraception.
Culture, heal thyself.
10.4.2011 | 7:20pm
habeas says:
The HHS policy's "religious exemption" requires the following: That an organization
"(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a nonprofit organization" under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code.
Are the Catholic universities unable to meet these four criteria? If our Catholic universities are inculcating religious values, hiring primarily Catholic employees, and serving Catholic students, (non-profit status not being a problem for these universities,) they are already exempt. If they are NOT meeting these criteria, why aren't they? At what point do Catholic universities become secular universities with some theology courses? Aren't there enough Catholics on the academic job market for them to hire primarily--that is, 51%--Catholic employees?
"(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a nonprofit organization" under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code.
Are the Catholic universities unable to meet these four criteria? If our Catholic universities are inculcating religious values, hiring primarily Catholic employees, and serving Catholic students, (non-profit status not being a problem for these universities,) they are already exempt. If they are NOT meeting these criteria, why aren't they? At what point do Catholic universities become secular universities with some theology courses? Aren't there enough Catholics on the academic job market for them to hire primarily--that is, 51%--Catholic employees?
10.4.2011 | 7:35pm
A.M . says:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646
good article , explaining The Church's teaching that has been consistent through the ages , on usury .
good article , explaining The Church's teaching that has been consistent through the ages , on usury .
10.4.2011 | 8:09pm
Howard says:
I'm not above rabbit chasing.
I've had conversations with people who define "Christianity" as their narrow Fundamentalist sect and "Religion" as everything else. Basically, if you don't belong to their church, they'll DEFINE your beliefs for you (you get no say in the matter) and also speed up the analysis by merely DEFINING your beliefs to be a priori wrong. It never occurs to them that they can't really invent a private language and expect others to respect it.
I sometimes wonder about this in the context of usury. I see it mentioned in the Old Testament, and although I have a general idea of what was being prohibited, I am not sure of the technical definition. I'm also not sure that the people who DEFINE it as the charging of any interest whatsoever, or those who DEFINE it as the charging of any interest on a loan for the purpose of an action not designed to make a profit, are not doing the same thing my Fundamentalist friend was doing. Maybe they aren't, but I'd like to see the evidence for it. maybe from the Misnah or from authoritative Church documents that go into greater detail.
I've had conversations with people who define "Christianity" as their narrow Fundamentalist sect and "Religion" as everything else. Basically, if you don't belong to their church, they'll DEFINE your beliefs for you (you get no say in the matter) and also speed up the analysis by merely DEFINING your beliefs to be a priori wrong. It never occurs to them that they can't really invent a private language and expect others to respect it.
I sometimes wonder about this in the context of usury. I see it mentioned in the Old Testament, and although I have a general idea of what was being prohibited, I am not sure of the technical definition. I'm also not sure that the people who DEFINE it as the charging of any interest whatsoever, or those who DEFINE it as the charging of any interest on a loan for the purpose of an action not designed to make a profit, are not doing the same thing my Fundamentalist friend was doing. Maybe they aren't, but I'd like to see the evidence for it. maybe from the Misnah or from authoritative Church documents that go into greater detail.
10.4.2011 | 8:30pm
Mr. Mark says:
"the U.S. Department of Health and Human services is determinedly plowing forward with its so-called “contraceptive mandate”—all private health plans are to cover contraception and sterilization as “preventive services” for women, and the mandate includes individuals and groups with moral or religious objections."
Given that the US Gov't has clearly stated its intention to completely take over and operate the health care system in this country, just like the UK's National Health Service; this is consistent. No one or nothing else will be permitted to do health care.
*******************
"Why, then, should a church have to surrender an activity simply because it is bound to perform it in obedience to its own strictures? Why must a constitutionally protected entity be put in a position by which it must either cease to be what it is, or recede into the background, and outside of the public realm? "
Because the Gov't says so (Marbury v. Madison, Legal Positivism and Deconstructionism). The Constitution is whatever those with the guns say it is, because might makes right. The 1st amendment says Gov't can't endorse religion. That means NO religious organization can get Gov't $$$$. It also says Gov't must allow free exercise. ***Individual*** free exercise, NOT organized. Free exercise can and must be done in one's bedroom, bathroom, basement or closet, not in public view and not in a religious building.
Just like all the other societies that put god in a cage and threw it into the town dump, America will flourish because of it. Believing in supernatural things is for immature children. America is finally growing up and realizing there is no monster under the bed....
Given that the US Gov't has clearly stated its intention to completely take over and operate the health care system in this country, just like the UK's National Health Service; this is consistent. No one or nothing else will be permitted to do health care.
*******************
"Why, then, should a church have to surrender an activity simply because it is bound to perform it in obedience to its own strictures? Why must a constitutionally protected entity be put in a position by which it must either cease to be what it is, or recede into the background, and outside of the public realm? "
Because the Gov't says so (Marbury v. Madison, Legal Positivism and Deconstructionism). The Constitution is whatever those with the guns say it is, because might makes right. The 1st amendment says Gov't can't endorse religion. That means NO religious organization can get Gov't $$$$. It also says Gov't must allow free exercise. ***Individual*** free exercise, NOT organized. Free exercise can and must be done in one's bedroom, bathroom, basement or closet, not in public view and not in a religious building.
Just like all the other societies that put god in a cage and threw it into the town dump, America will flourish because of it. Believing in supernatural things is for immature children. America is finally growing up and realizing there is no monster under the bed....
10.4.2011 | 9:01pm
David Nickol says:
@A.M, arty, Francis J. Beckwith, Carson Chittom:
On the matter of church teaching being influenced by the faithful and also on the topic of usury, I was going to cite John T. Noonan's classic book A Church that Can and Cannot Change, but I stumbled upon an article of his called Development in Moral Doctrine that seems almost to be an abridged version of the book. It is available free in its entirety here:
http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/54/54.4/54.4.3.pdf
On the matter of church teaching being influenced by the faithful and also on the topic of usury, I was going to cite John T. Noonan's classic book A Church that Can and Cannot Change, but I stumbled upon an article of his called Development in Moral Doctrine that seems almost to be an abridged version of the book. It is available free in its entirety here:
http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/54/54.4/54.4.3.pdf
10.4.2011 | 11:31pm
T.D. Roy says:
Michael PS, your analysis of the First Amendment is egregiously flawed. (1) As another individual has noted above, "no establishment" is not a limitation on religious freedom. It is a limitation on governmental establishment of a single religion; it is a limitation on a potential limitation of religious freedom. Precisely the opposite effect from your reading.
(2) The prohibition is addressed to individuals acting in the capacity of a public institution, not to private individuals in their relations with any governmental entity. My law professor cannot pray in class, because this is a state school, and he is acting as a state representative. But I can, and do, belong to the Christian Legal Society, sponsored by the University, meeting every Wednesday night in a law school room, on state property, consuming state resources in the form of energy. Numerous SCOTUS cases have upheld this as constitutionally valid, as long as we are not privileged above other groups. You may certainly not privilege us less! Furthermore, I can get married (a civil function) in a church - an example of a religious institution acting rather intimately with the government.
(4) There are indeed limitations on religious rights and exemptions, but these limitations are not because of but rather despite the First Amendment. Again, the First Amendment limits the government, not individuals. Employment Division v. Smith - AKA "the Indian peyote case" (!) - is on point here. Smoking peyote is religious? Too bad. According to our balancing test, the state's interest can overrule yours, if it is minimally intrusive. But note that the Court's ruling is carving out an exception to the religious freedom established by the First Amendment.
One may more fairly say that the First Amendment excludes the public sphere from religion, than religion per se from anyone involved in the public sphere. Religion is not after all a discrete entity, walking about on its own. For many it is rather a way of life; its deeply felt calls are given special weight and special protection by our Constitution, but are still subject to balancing against the needs of the state. That is a far cry from "exclusion". Indeed one cannot exclude religion per se from the public sphere; attempts to do so merely exclude religious people from the public sphere.
(2) The prohibition is addressed to individuals acting in the capacity of a public institution, not to private individuals in their relations with any governmental entity. My law professor cannot pray in class, because this is a state school, and he is acting as a state representative. But I can, and do, belong to the Christian Legal Society, sponsored by the University, meeting every Wednesday night in a law school room, on state property, consuming state resources in the form of energy. Numerous SCOTUS cases have upheld this as constitutionally valid, as long as we are not privileged above other groups. You may certainly not privilege us less! Furthermore, I can get married (a civil function) in a church - an example of a religious institution acting rather intimately with the government.
(4) There are indeed limitations on religious rights and exemptions, but these limitations are not because of but rather despite the First Amendment. Again, the First Amendment limits the government, not individuals. Employment Division v. Smith - AKA "the Indian peyote case" (!) - is on point here. Smoking peyote is religious? Too bad. According to our balancing test, the state's interest can overrule yours, if it is minimally intrusive. But note that the Court's ruling is carving out an exception to the religious freedom established by the First Amendment.
One may more fairly say that the First Amendment excludes the public sphere from religion, than religion per se from anyone involved in the public sphere. Religion is not after all a discrete entity, walking about on its own. For many it is rather a way of life; its deeply felt calls are given special weight and special protection by our Constitution, but are still subject to balancing against the needs of the state. That is a far cry from "exclusion". Indeed one cannot exclude religion per se from the public sphere; attempts to do so merely exclude religious people from the public sphere.
10.5.2011 | 12:20am
John Stockings says:
Mr. Nichol says:
"In reality, it seems to me that there is a small minority of Catholics who still cling to Church teachings against contraception, and very few in that minority are faced with the decision to use contraceptives themselves. I have read statistics that I believe to be reliable that about 95% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use artificial contraception. I have also seen figures that about 3% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use NFP. Bishops, priests, and nuns may oppose contraception and favor NFP, but they have no dog in the fight."
This is the only sensible commentary above on the contraception teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which have been reactionary and hence disregarded by most Catholics in developed countries and cultures since first promulgated by a confused pope. In the Philippines, which I visited in 2009, the Church is fiercely resisting any democratic efforts in the legislature that would help reduce the size of the average family there, which is six. In this instance, the Church is mandating poverty, seemingly in its own interest since only its interest is threatened. The needs of the vast numbers of poor people are ignored. Truly, the clergy and religious have no dog in the fight, but they certainly relish the fight anyway! For moral reasons? Self-interest under cover of strained philosophical and theological arguments is the more likely motive. Or perhaps just pietistic separatism, as shown by one critic of Mr. Nichols. It's always exhilerating to feel right in the face of the majority. It may also be stupid.
Ms. Scalia's initial points are valid and well elucidated in that Obamacare does infringe on the legal rights of church-based health care providers and their employees. Unfortunately she goes off on a right-wing tangent in the last few paragraphs, foretelling constitutional doom for believers (does she really believe her paranoiac nonsense, or is this how one makes a living as a journalist these days, whether on the right or left, by raising grave alarms?). Ms. Scalia might consider hosting a radio call-in show targeting a right-wing audience. Simple, humble concluding comments are far better than imitating right-wing fanaticism. The First Things editor was careless in letting this tripe stay in at the end of an otherwise thoughtful article.
"In reality, it seems to me that there is a small minority of Catholics who still cling to Church teachings against contraception, and very few in that minority are faced with the decision to use contraceptives themselves. I have read statistics that I believe to be reliable that about 95% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use artificial contraception. I have also seen figures that about 3% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age use NFP. Bishops, priests, and nuns may oppose contraception and favor NFP, but they have no dog in the fight."
This is the only sensible commentary above on the contraception teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which have been reactionary and hence disregarded by most Catholics in developed countries and cultures since first promulgated by a confused pope. In the Philippines, which I visited in 2009, the Church is fiercely resisting any democratic efforts in the legislature that would help reduce the size of the average family there, which is six. In this instance, the Church is mandating poverty, seemingly in its own interest since only its interest is threatened. The needs of the vast numbers of poor people are ignored. Truly, the clergy and religious have no dog in the fight, but they certainly relish the fight anyway! For moral reasons? Self-interest under cover of strained philosophical and theological arguments is the more likely motive. Or perhaps just pietistic separatism, as shown by one critic of Mr. Nichols. It's always exhilerating to feel right in the face of the majority. It may also be stupid.
Ms. Scalia's initial points are valid and well elucidated in that Obamacare does infringe on the legal rights of church-based health care providers and their employees. Unfortunately she goes off on a right-wing tangent in the last few paragraphs, foretelling constitutional doom for believers (does she really believe her paranoiac nonsense, or is this how one makes a living as a journalist these days, whether on the right or left, by raising grave alarms?). Ms. Scalia might consider hosting a radio call-in show targeting a right-wing audience. Simple, humble concluding comments are far better than imitating right-wing fanaticism. The First Things editor was careless in letting this tripe stay in at the end of an otherwise thoughtful article.
10.5.2011 | 4:02am
Michael PS says:
T D Roy
Employment Division v Smith really does get of the heart of the matter.
As Rousseau says, ““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 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.” His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu'on le forcera d'être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”
Employment Division v Smith really does get of the heart of the matter.
As Rousseau says, ““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 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.” His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu'on le forcera d'être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”
10.5.2011 | 10:01am
Chris Balducci says:
"He who pays the piper calls the tune".
That has been happening since Catholic heath care institutions and Catholic Charities started accepting government money. What is "Catholic" about Catholic hospitals anymore? They're all big business, Catholic in name only. The same goes for Catholic Charities.
That has been happening since Catholic heath care institutions and Catholic Charities started accepting government money. What is "Catholic" about Catholic hospitals anymore? They're all big business, Catholic in name only. The same goes for Catholic Charities.
10.5.2011 | 10:32am
arty says:
Well...never mind. I was making an argument, over the course of my comments, that we ought to ask, "is the church right?" about contraception, in a manner that is consistent with scripture, and that is accessible to the faculty of reason, and that is borne out by the practical experience of those who follow it, but it seems that its just easier to dub the opposition "reactionaries" than to actually do your dang homework. I'm tempted to claim that commentators' invincible determination to avoid addressing this is simply evidence that I'm correct that uttering the words "thou shalt not" is the ultimate sin in modern western culture, but Stocking's much vaunted "humility" above forces me to acknowledge that when you've got a hammer everything looks like a nail.
David: I will read that article though, just as you'll no doubt be digesting the Theology of the Body soon?
Cheers
David: I will read that article though, just as you'll no doubt be digesting the Theology of the Body soon?
Cheers
10.5.2011 | 12:34pm
T.D. Roy says:
Michael PS, my knowledge of Rousseau is scant at best. Do I read the quotation right in suggesting a sort of social contract, adherence to which frees us from "the state of nature" or savagery, but necessitates subordinating our rights to the common good? Good stuff. I envy you your French.
10.5.2011 | 1:38pm
Eli says:
Scalia's major mistake is that she misidentifies the entity that the constitution is supposed to protect: unless we protect the liberal democratic identity of the USA first and foremost, we've failed. See: http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/10/some-melodrama-for-your-wednesday.html
10.5.2011 | 6:12pm
JDD says:
John Stockings:
"Bishops, priests, and nuns may oppose contraception and favor NFP, but they have no dog in the fight."
Which is a little like saying that if you don't actually have children, then you can't possibly and don't actually care about children. Or about families that have children. A conclusion that you have to reach by disregarding the fact that those same religious - who have given their life away in service - spend much of their time caring for the poor.
"For moral reasons? Self-interest under cover of strained philosophical and theological arguments is the more likely motive."
Oh.
"Bishops, priests, and nuns may oppose contraception and favor NFP, but they have no dog in the fight."
Which is a little like saying that if you don't actually have children, then you can't possibly and don't actually care about children. Or about families that have children. A conclusion that you have to reach by disregarding the fact that those same religious - who have given their life away in service - spend much of their time caring for the poor.
"For moral reasons? Self-interest under cover of strained philosophical and theological arguments is the more likely motive."
Oh.
10.5.2011 | 7:44pm
Timely Renewed says:
The fundamental problem here is the modern misinterpretation of the first amendment's Establishment clause. "Separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, nor is it a correct interpretation of the Establishment clause. The sole meaning of the Establishment clause was to prohibit the federal government from preferring one faith as a national religion. The 20th century Supreme Court rulings expanding that clause to incorporate the bigoted 19th century anti-Catholic concept of "separation of church and state" are an unconstitutional exercise of judicial overreach, as well as creating a jurisprudence which even pro-separationists acknowledge is incoherent. We need to amend the first amendment to restore the original meaning of its establishment clause, which is non-preference among denominations, not secular hostility to faith in general. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
10.6.2011 | 5:01am
Michael PS says:
Timely Renewed
I would suggest that No Establishment includes, but goes beyond state neutrality between religions. It would not permit, for example, the régime in Alsace-Moselle, where the Law of 1905 does not apply and the French state subsidizes equally Catholic, Protestant and Jewish worship. Rather, it means that the state does not recognize, salary or subsidize any form of worship.
Implicit, surely, in the notion of republican equality, is the principle that the state does not classify citizens, according to their religious beliefs or affiliations. To take a couple of foreign examples, in the UK, the law requires motor-cyclists, except Sikhs, to wear safety helmets. In France, a similar law was struck down by the Conseil constitutionnel [19 nov 2004 no 505 DC] – the constitutional principles “prohibit anyone from taking advantage of their religious beliefs to exempt themselves from the common rules governing the relations between public authorities and private individuals” – which is the same as the rule in Employment Division v Smith.
To hold otherwise 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?
I would suggest that No Establishment includes, but goes beyond state neutrality between religions. It would not permit, for example, the régime in Alsace-Moselle, where the Law of 1905 does not apply and the French state subsidizes equally Catholic, Protestant and Jewish worship. Rather, it means that the state does not recognize, salary or subsidize any form of worship.
Implicit, surely, in the notion of republican equality, is the principle that the state does not classify citizens, according to their religious beliefs or affiliations. To take a couple of foreign examples, in the UK, the law requires motor-cyclists, except Sikhs, to wear safety helmets. In France, a similar law was struck down by the Conseil constitutionnel [19 nov 2004 no 505 DC] – the constitutional principles “prohibit anyone from taking advantage of their religious beliefs to exempt themselves from the common rules governing the relations between public authorities and private individuals” – which is the same as the rule in Employment Division v Smith.
To hold otherwise 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?
11.14.2011 | 3:05pm
AKO says:
"There is no “right” to adopt, of course. For that matter, there is no such thing as a “right” to be married, whether one is hetero-or-homosexual. Yet gay marriage activists will tell you that legalizing same-sex marriage is intrinsically tied into a homosexual couple being “who they are” in society."
The logic behind those who don't want others to marry is baffling. How does two black people marrying, to gay people marrying, or two people who have the same eye color marrying threaten the sanctity of marriage at all? People are people they should be able to live their life as such. Like a human being.
The logic behind those who don't want others to marry is baffling. How does two black people marrying, to gay people marrying, or two people who have the same eye color marrying threaten the sanctity of marriage at all? People are people they should be able to live their life as such. Like a human being.
Obviously, “free exercise” is as important as excluding religion from the public sphere of the state and its administration. It implies that the state does not intervene in the religious sphere and hence that it, in turn, is excluded from the latter. This assumes a complete separation between state and civil society, between the public sphere and the private domain, the framework of society, which is the domain not only of individuals but of groups and associations (and thus of churches and religious communities). This is why religious freedom is at once individual (freedom of conscience) and collective (freedom of religious communities). It implies that the latter organize themselves and operate freely.