John recently quoted a statistic regarding opinions on same sex unions, which stated that those in favor accounted for 52%, those opposed, 48%. This statistic is important, not just because those in favor represent a majority, but because this figure is so close to 50/50. It might be true that the equal strength of these two opposite opinions might account for the heated rhetoric when it comes to subject. Something to ponder.
Now, the trend over time is toward toleration of homosexuality and gay unions. That's not just practical or political, but philosophical too. People are feeling more and more that there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, and that it's not harmful to society to allow gays to settle down. Conversely, some are feeling more and more that there's something wrong with those who do not accept homosexuality. It seems logical at this point to assume the trend is going to continue in that direction.
There's a fine line between acceptance and tolerance, and I do believe that there's plenty of room for religious dissent and freedom of opinion, but that's something of a side point. Mainly, I'd like to answer to the opinion of some Christians that they are being victimized because of their beliefs.
In as much as a man can criticize any person or idea in this country, he himself is not free from criticism. It is not a question of which opinion has merit. It is not a question of whether homosexuality is actually wrong. It is not a question of whether it's fair to call Catholics or Southern Baptists bigots simply for their code of morality. Right or wrong, in this country we are free to believe any ridiculous, stupid, even hateful thing that we wish.
The media is within their rights to act on bias by giving liberal or conservative voices disproportionate focus. An individual is within his rights to protest... anything. Our society as a whole is within its rights to turn their opinion against one group or another. It may feel horrible to be a minority which is unfairly hounded, but too bad.
I am not oppressed when Wanda Sykes appears on my TV to tell me to "knock it off" when it comes to using "gay" as a coloquialism to mean "dumb"; although I am annoyed by it. When one party says, "You aren't allowed to do this", "You aren't allowed to think this", and their words have the weight of law and civil authority behind them - that is a question of oppression. That is legitimately a a matter of victimization.
Make no mistake, there is nothing necessarily wrong with authorities making victims of people. It is, by design, one intended purpose of society. We victimize those convicted of crimes by placing them in prison, or executing them. We victimize the rich by forcing them to pay a higher marginal tax rate (which they, in turn, avoid with loophole, but nonetheless...). Whenever the force of law is executed, a victim is created.
The question is, is the benefit to society as a whole (the greater good) worth the collateral damage? If it's a question of outlawing anti-gay speech, I would say that it is certainly not worth the damage to individual rights. Luckily, I know of no such bill currently under consideration. Why did I just waste my time illustrating such an outlandish notion? I'm not sure. Where was I going with this again? Oh yeah: Stay outta my booze.
No! OK, back on track. A more feasible possibility is a business owner being sued for denying service to a homosexual. Which has a greater value (the greater good) to our society, preventing victimization of the store owner, or store patron? I think the homosexual patron would have the stronger case, but I guess it's open for debate. My point is this: this case, and others like it, are not simply a matter of Christians being run roughshod over because of their beliefs. There is not one victim here, but two. Not one aggressor, but two. Two competing worldviews are duking it out in field of public opinion. This is one battle in a greater culture war. Lawmakers do their best to balance the interests of various parties to find a balance (the greater good - SHUT IT) that serves the public interest. In the past, they might have been more inclined to side with a shopkeep against a minority that people don't care for, or are indifferent to. Now, it's more likely to side with a minority who wants a sandwich from the shop that everyone else is eating at.
Does that mean Christianity is being oppressed? No, I don't think so. I don't think that's a fair characterization. We are not forcing any particular church to perform a gay ceremony. We are not forcing churches to change their theology. And we're certainly not forming an Outback Nazi Law Enforcement Agency to hunt down and exterminate the intolerant. Nor are there any plans to do so. So yeah, I think such characterizations are overblown, and dishonest.
I'd like a little more before I jump in.
ReplyDeleteWe're not talking about sandwiches here.
Part of the issue is that Catholic doctors at Catholic hospitals may end up forced to perform abortions. Or distribute condoms etc.
There is concern, as we talked about before, that a Church with a hall might have to rent itself to a gay group for a gay wedding etc.
What of this?
"Part of the issue is that Catholic doctors at Catholic hospitals may end up forced to perform abortions. Or distribute condoms etc."
ReplyDeleteUh, how is that?
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8502-catholic-hospitals-pro-lifers-object-to-hhs-birth-control-mandate
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is, are those possibilities actually credible? They seem very far out and flimsy to me. I think you need to back that up with something, because I'm not going to entertain any possible hypothetical that does not necessarily relate to the real world.
ReplyDeleteNevermind. I'll read that now.
ReplyDeleteI just wrote a ridiculously long (and ridiculously wonderful!) response, which blogspot ate.
ReplyDeleteI'm contemplating murder or vegging out with junk food (probably the latter) to calm myself.
I'll try again when I'm occupying space in a hellishly dark introspective nightmare place.
"I just wrote a ridiculously long (and ridiculously wonderful!) response, which blogspot ate."
ReplyDeleteThis is why you should copy your responses and place them in a Word document until you're sure blogspot won't gobble them up.
"Part of the issue is that Catholic doctors at Catholic hospitals may end up forced to perform abortions. Or distribute condoms etc."
The ruling of a 19th century Supreme Court case called Reynolds v. United States stated that though the government was not entitled to legislate religious opinions, it was within the government's power to legislate religious-based actions. The purpose of this ruling was essentially to justify the banning of deviant acts, which some might argue are essential to their religion (polygamy, illicit drug use, animal/human sacrifice).
If a law were to pass requiring all hospitals to offer abortion services, it is entirely possible religious hospitals would not be exempt. Therefore, I think you are justified in being worried about this prospect.
It only goes to show that the Judicial Branch is the true sovereign power of the United States.
OK.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the question of a Catholic hospital being forced to pay for abortions isn't valid. The only thing approaching that is mention of "preventative care" for women. That's OBGYN checkups and care, not abortions. You could say that the terminology is too vague, but I think anyone interpreting that would see it as too thin, and I would be very surprised if you could convince a court to make that leap.
As for forcing Catholic doctors to hand out condoms, that's not exactly accurate either. They're talking about Catholic Hospitals providing insurance coverage for employers, and the wording of the legislation is such that insurance companies must pay for birth control for women.
I see the problem, but the attempt at regulation is being done in good faith. They're not going after the Catholic Church, but rather trying to prevent corporate chicanery on the part of insurance companies. In fact, churches, or any organization that is devoted to religious services and proselytizing is exempt from this requirement. That shows that the drafters of this legislation had Church rights in mind.
The problem is that Catholic Hospitals can't claim that exemption, since they're not a church. They're a hospital, and they aren't devoted to proselytizing. That's something of a loophole, and I admit that I'd like to see it closed if possible.
As much as I'd like to see it closed, I'm not sure how it should be done, and I don't presume to say. Why it's difficult is because of the nature of a Catholic hospital. I presume they are all funded by the Church, at least in part. I know that they serve both Catholics and non-catholics alike. They also hire both Catholics and non-Catholics. That's the reason why it's being caught up in this.
If this were an exclusively Catholic affair, it would be able to take the exemption. Alternatively, if it was merely a charitable donation by the church, made to hospitals for the sake of funding hospitals, with no say over administrative decisions, this wouldn't be an issue because the Church wouldn't have grounds to protest.
As it stands though, these hospitals are somewhere in between a religious and secular affair. It's not distinctly religious enough to claim the exemption, and as an organization that is open to public regulation, it's subject to that regulation.
The majority of Americans would feel that birth control pills for women is a service that insurance companies should provide. It's not just some fringe procedure, it's legitimate medicine. That's why it's being required.
ReplyDeleteI know you might argue, "The Church wants to be charitable, and help pay for medicine, but it won't pay for things it finds objectionable, what's so wrong about that"? Nothing. But it's the job of government to ensure that what's called "medicine" is consistent, and well defined. I'm sorry that the Church is at odds with that definition, but it is.
If a group of African witch doctors wanted to open a hospital in the US, to provide holistic medicine, they would be able to, they just couldn't advertise as medicine, or a hospital, or refer to themselves as medical doctors. I don't begrudge their motives (even though I think their beliefs are bunk), but they can't be allowed to undermine what we call "medicine" in this country.
That's an extreme example. Catholic hospitals would not be dangerous to exempt from this specific piece of regulation. It would work out fine, but I'm talking about the nature of the conflict, and setting precedents and all that. Catholic demands are fairly reasonable. Other faiths might not be. To allow the Church to help govern what are acceptable medical practices in one case, but not allow others would be a difficult legal knot to untie.
What makes a Catholic hospital Catholic? That's what I want to know. What I'd like to see is the Church taking this to a federal court, and have some judges sort out the nature of the problem, and have the Church say on record what it's intention with these hospitals are.
But back to the main point: Is it unfairly targeting the faith? No, I don't think so.
I don't think much of anything outside the Vatican and some council affairs and maybe the cardinals travel is funded by "The Church," but clearly the money for Catholic hospitals draws donations from the same crowd. Some are probably funded by various religious orders.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, the hospitals are Catholic in ideology, but must stay afloat or close on their own.
Really not sure.
You're right that it's a loophole, but the Church/hospitals were forced somewhat into doing it that way.
You can't run a business and only hire people from one religion. A hospital, whatever it's secondary motives, is a business. Also, to have a good hospital, you need to hire the best people, and the best doctor might not always be a catholic.
But here's the thing with the insurance. It's not misrepresented. Anyone who works for the Church knows that they won't have any birth control related stuff paid for. If you don't like that, don't take the job.
Sometimes BC pills serve a medical purpose other than BC, and then, some Catholic insurers will pay for it, otherwise not.
It is not unsound medicine to advise alternative methods when they also work. There is natural family planning, and abstinence. Two very effective means for reaching the same result, even if less convenient. I don't see how that's bad medicine.
Religion aside, I don't think we should be legislating what an insurer can decide to cover or not cover this specifically.
Let insurers and companies choose their plans, and let people choose their employers. I'm not against some regulation (must offer emergency services, life critical things perhaps), but this is a bit much.
"Religion aside, I don't think we should be legislating what an insurer can decide to cover or not cover this specifically.
ReplyDeleteLet insurers and companies choose their plans, and let people choose their employers. I'm not against some regulation (must offer emergency services, life critical things perhaps), but this is a bit much."
I disagree. Health care is disproportionately expensive in our US, compared to every other country in the world. Taken as a whole, the system is remarkably inefficient and inconsistent. This reform is an attempt to make each insurance plan consistent, at least in broad strokes, to eliminate some of the sneakier insurance practices and to work in tandem with a mandate for consumers to purchase insurance - for the purpose of lowering costs.
That's good.
Now, in PRACTICAL terms (if I were a Senator with an amendment on my desk) I wouldn't mind extending the exemption to catholic hospitals. I'm confident the majority of Americans would support it too. Don't you think? After all, excluding birth control coverage for this minority of employees wouldn't be a major threat to the overall system. Compromise.
However, on PRINCIPLE, I think catholic insurance should have to follow the same regulations as any other insurance company. It goes back to the question of whether it's a Church or a business. I'd have to say it's primarily a business (your drift was in that direction too), so why shouldn't it? It's not a question of whether it's "misrepresented" or not. For whatever it's altruistic intentions, the fact is that American bishops have influence over what medical care people are entitled to for a portion of the state. On general principle, that won't do.
This is a parallel to the question of Catholic run orphanages. The pro-catholic narrative is "We're making these services available for the good of the [sick/children], but you're trying to force us to do what's against our conscience." My narrative would be "The Catholic Church is trying to affect control over how services are rendered through sponsorship/patronage". Which narrative is spin? Both, probably.
I don't begrudge the catholic position, but on the other hand, I know it's not a good precedent.
Look, getting back to the original question of whether this is really oppression of religion. Is this a question of society coming after the Church for ideological reasons? No. This is a matter of regulating business practices. Health care is a service which people don't have a choice about whether they consume. So I think the regulation is therefore justified: it's a societal concern. Whether society is justified in extending this to catholic hospitals is, I hope we can all agree after this back-and-forth, arguable. So I'd say it's definately not a clear cut case of oppressing religious opinions. Catholic clergy and lay-persons are still perfectly free to argue against birth control pills til the cows come home.
I feel like I should acknowledge Matt, since he wrote something and we were too focused to give heed.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I acknowledge you!
I acknowledge the less than flexible Catholic position here but, I support it.
ReplyDeleteTheology and business are not different things to the believer (I'm a bad example because I compartmentalize a lot).
You're right that the situation is arguable. Clearly, the state has the right to legislate this situation.
Is the motivation to attack the Church here? No. Is the action going to adversely effect the Church and Church related entities? Yes.
Do I know where I'm going with this? I do not.
Thing is, it will likely end badly as the Church can't go against it's conscience on this.
I'm not worried, the problem will sort itself out one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteThe general point I was trying to make (admittedly not very clear) is that, while it may be true the "worm has turned", and secular values are beginning to clash against religious values in the mainstream, that doesn't necessarily equal repression or victimization. Marginalization - yes, absolutely. But not repression. Sometimes this carries over into the legal arena, and that's too bad. But not unfair or unjust.
To broaden this up a bit: I had a thought this morning when listening to a news report about the EU and Greece. My premise is this, if human overpopulation isn't a problem now, it will be in the near future.
If we're looking forward into a future where our population isn't sustainable (look to sub-saharan Africa as a sneak peek), famine is widespread, and natural resources are exhausted, in some cases beyond the point of recovery - what are we to do?
What is the answer to such a situation? The conclusion I keep coming to is some sort of regulation of human procreation. Either forced (or incentivized) sterilization, or the use of birth control or abortion to limit individuals to one child ala China. It's a repulsive thought, to rob one of the individual right to have a family. Every principle of "human rights" or the ideal of liberty is against it. But would it not be necessary to prevent catastrophy?
The church would certainly be against such measures as a matter of conscience. Even non-religious persons of priciple would align against it.
It's a difficult question: which takes precedence? principle/moral imperative or practical necessity? This scenario doesn't leave much room for coexistence, so which has to go?
Yeah, that Soylent Green moment is going to happen one of these days if populations continue to grow.
ReplyDeleteI imagine the Church would be able to support a policy wherein married couples use the Natural Family Planning method to do their best to limit the having of kids, but other than that, the same principles such as no sex before or outside marriage would be their rallying cry, and then being responsible with NFP within marriage.
I also imagine they'd argue that much of the population boom has to do with kids out of wedlock, of course I don't know if that's true.
But they account for some. If everyone got married, and was responsible about things, more kids wouldn't be being born than could be cared for.
But then if I were 6-foot-10 with mad handles, I'd be in the NBA......so ...I lost my train of thought again.
BUCK FUTTER!
I only looked as far as recent stats for the US, but children born out of wedlock accounted for about 40% of births in 2007.
ReplyDeleteI would say it's unfair to characterize it as a problem caused by sexual immorality, though.
Natural family planning is basically asking married couples to abstain most of the time. If we're talking practicality, I don't think that's going to fly. For one, I don't think many people would go for it. For another, I doubt its effective enough to serve as a solution that will guarantee no more unwanted child birth.
I didn't really intend this to be a "Catholicism is absurd" thread, but I see it's trending that way. Bleh.
"Matt, I acknowledge you!"
ReplyDeleteI feel so loved.
"I also imagine they'd argue that much of the population boom has to do with kids out of wedlock, of course I don't know if that's true."
Ugh! Do you really think the Catholic Church would exploit the problem of overpopulation to push its agenda? Sure, why not? Of course they would.
You want to blame something for overpopulation? Blame the increase in food production, blame the unavailability and/or discouragement of the use of birth control, blame the submissive role of women in most societies.
To simplify the problem to, "The damned sinners are having sex out of wedlock," is simply stupid! MY BRAIN HURTS just thinking about it. I want to take something and smash it with a sledgehammer to get out the pent up aggression caused by this insult to the mind.
Whelp, ate some food. Now I feel better.
"I imagine the Church would be able to support a policy wherein married couples use the Natural Family Planning method to do their best to limit the having of kids, but other than that, the same principles such as no sex before or outside marriage would be their rallying cry, and then being responsible with NFP within marriage."
Doing there part to....support abstinence, right? Sex is a biological imperative. Trying to prevent pregnancy by asking people to ignore their hardwired urges is not effective.
Also, it seems rather absurd to tell people the only legit time in their life to be having sex is when they're married, and then turn around and say, "Great, you're married. Now you really should continue to abstain. Maybe have one or two kids and just stop, mmk?"
Can you imagine having sex with your wife only a handful of times, and then be expected to give it up for the rest of your life? Wouldn't that suck?
You know what would be a far more effective strategy? Encouraging the use of birth control. But wait, sex is only meant for reproduction, bemoans the Church! Well, accommodation is not a foreign concept to religions. If the Church does some "soul searching," I'm sure it could eventually find a way to come around.
"I didn't really intend this to be a "Catholicism is absurd" thread, but I see it's trending that way. Bleh."
Shit happens. Just go with the flow.
"I feel so loved."
ReplyDeleteBut you are loved! Your presence has been missed. Greatly missed. I am not an... inclusive sort of person, and things have been lonely with just John to keep me company. As deep and abiding as my love for John is, three is a much better number than two, and Our Conversation has suffered from want of your... acerbic wit.
"Shit happens. Just go with the flow. "
A bit of a vulgarian streak, though.
Grad school can be very time consuming, but I will try to participate in the blog more often.
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed. The mere thought that you would put continued education, a good job and a better livelihood ahead of ME! And MY LEISURE ACTIVITIES! Above solving THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS by repeating the observations of more intelligent men, as if they were OUR OWN IDEAS! Above posturing and preening! Above fancy top-hats and Victorian nonsense!
ReplyDeleteWell, I need say no more. The act speaks for itself in its depravity.