Religious freedom (warning: long rant)

[Ted King]

Individual freedom is the unrestricted ability to do whatever one has the mental and physical capacity to do. If there were no actions that a person could do that would infringe another person's individual freedom, we would not need compromises to individual freedoms as guidelines to have functional societies of individuals. But people wish to do actions all of the time that infringe on the individual freedoms of other people, so those compromises to individual freedom as guidelines are necessary. We hope to achieve compromises that fairly balance the clash of freedoms. The really hard part is figuring out what is fair, since it necessitates appeals to values and the values of individuals in large, diverse societies are very diverse as well.

One of the things that makes "religious freedom" tricky is that the term can be applied in conceptually unique ways to either established religious affiliations around a supernatural, or morality encompassing, world view with associated doctrines, or it can be applied to individual conscientious objection to particular legal guidelines - the conscientious objection based on a supernatural/moral world view. I'm sure there are other ways to take the term "religious freedom", but I want to focus on those two as a way to demonstrate a problem with trying to treat them the same way.

The Republicans in Congress today called for a law "that permits any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans". (They are just making a show to keep the social conservatives on their side and riled up.) That implies that they want to establish this religious freedom based on individual conscientious objection as well as to established religious institutions. That sets off my slippery-slope meter. Keeping religious freedoms to within established religious doctrine means that there is much less diversity of values over which to make compromises. Opening it up to individual conscientious objection means that the amount of diversity of values over which to negotiate compromises is bound to be huge. That is the slippery slope.

If the kind of law the Republicans want to pass were to have been effect when I was 21 years old, I would have argued that I should have been able to have a conscientious objection to being drafted into the army to fight in Vietnam War. I definitely had an individual conscientious objection to the Vietnam War and I would have claimed that if someone can opt out of providing contraception coverage for their employees for reasons of individual conscientious objection - as a form of religious freedom, then I sure has hell should be able to claim religious freedom to not be drafted to fight in a war I have conscientious objection to. (A note: you have to have a conscientious objection to ALL wars, not just a particular war, to qualify for a conscientious objector status.)

Now you could say that the objection to contraception health insurance coverage by an employer is also a matter of doctrine, so that is different. Two things - one, there is plenty of Christian doctrine one could use to argue for an individual conscientious objection to the Vietnam War. Two, I doubt we want to get into the position of saying to one employer, "Well, you are Catholic and your church has a doctrine against contraception so you can opt out," but to another employer, "Sorry, you may have a religious conscientious objection to contraception, but it's not part of your church's doctrines so you are not exempted"? There's no way the Supreme Court would allow that. The exemption would not have to depend on being doctrine - opening it up to individual conscientious objection.

So, slippery-slope. If we get wider open to the notion of religious freedom as individual conscientious objection, then I think we are clearly playing on the edge of a very slippery-slope.

I suppose some people may think that this is an easy position for me to take - reasoning that religious freedom should be more constrained. But actually, arguing against considering individual conscientious objection as religious freedom diminishes a powerful mechanism I, as an atheist, could use to get much more freedom to exempt myself from government policies than I, as an atheist individual conscientious objector, would be able to do if religious freedoms were limited more closely to established church doctrines.

[mattkime]

just how many duggars are there?

I'm still convinced that this is nothing but a political football for those that already believe Obama (the muslim?) is anti-religion. I wonder how many people out there that are "outraged" over this use birth control themselves.

Obama's challenge is to find the nicest way to set aside the absolutist religious demands.

I'm not in politics. I'd just tell them that there is little controversy and they're essentially alone on this one.

[$tevie]

Nicholas Kristof wrote: So, does America’s national health policy really need to make a far-reaching exception for Catholic institutions when a majority of Catholics oppose that exception?

I wondered what other religiously affiliated organizations do in this situation. Christian Science traditionally opposed medical care. Does The Christian Science Monitor deny health insurance to employees?

“We offer a standard health insurance package,” John Yemma, the editor, told me.

That makes sense. After all, do we really want to make accommodations across the range of faith? What if organizations affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses insisted on health insurance that did not cover blood transfusions? What if ultraconservative Muslim or Jewish organizations objected to health care except at sex-segregated clinics?

The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can. But we ban polygamy, for example, even for the pious. Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinio....html?_r=1

[Wags]

If someone is opposed to birth control based on religious conviction, or for any other reason, they simply don't have to use it. Not sure why this will not suffice. I draw the line where religion, or any other element of social control imposes restrictions that should be left to individual choice.

7 billion humans, and counting.

[Ted King]

Matt Yglesias had a column about this, this morning. He read and cited another longer take on the issue and then says - in a much more succinct manner than I did:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012...imits.html

Freedom of Conscience and Its Limits

Start with the assumption that ObamaCare is repealed, in its entirety, tomorrow. The day after tomorrow Abdul Hussain, owner and CEO of a large private firm with 5,000 employees, announces that his firm will no longer offer employees health insurance that permits women to visit male doctors or male employees to be treated by female doctors. This is a newsworthy event, and the day after the day after tomorrow Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder both offer the opinion that this is a form of illegal discrimination and that if it's not already illegal it should be made illegal. Will Mitch McConnell and other congressional Republicans stand up for Hussain's "freedom of conscience" in this case? Will my conservative Twitter followers?

I'm going to guess no.

Conservatives don't like the Affordable Care Act and are sympathetic on the merits to the claims of those who think contraceptives or morally wrong, so in this particular case the principle of "freedom of conscience" seems appealing to them. But there's actually nobody who endorses the general principle being invoked here.

[Dennis S]

[cbelt3]

Wags wrote:
I draw the line where religion, or any other element of social control imposes restrictions that should be left to individual choice.

Then stay away from China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

And more importantly remember that the whole imbroglio is about providing funds for contraceptives. Not 'denying contraceptices'. Catholic Church healthcare plan members can always pony up their own cash for the meds or gizmos or procedures.

Case in Point:

My father was a professor at a Catholic University. After the birth of my baby sister, their sixth child, he recognized that my mother's health was at risk. So he paid cash for a vasectomy... the Catholic institution insurance didn't cover it.

Much like I paid a good amount of the cost of mrs. cbelt3's tubal ligation after #3 child was born after 9 months of morning sickness.

[Lux Interior]

cbelt3 wrote:
Case in Point:

My father was a professor at a Catholic University. After the birth of my baby sister, their sixth child, he recognized that my mother's health was at risk. So he paid cash for a vasectomy... the Catholic institution insurance didn't cover it.

Much like I paid a good amount of the cost of mrs. cbelt3's tubal ligation after #3 child was born after 9 months of morning sickness.

Well, that's just awesome for your family. I guess the ones that can't afford that should stop having sex or keep having kids.

Why are you still Catholic if you don't want to follow their rules? I'm assuming both of those procedures are verboten?

[Wags]

cbelt3 wrote:
[quote=Wags]
I draw the line where religion, or any other element of social control imposes restrictions that should be left to individual choice.

Then stay away from China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
Indeed, the Draconian one-child policy. Tough choices are on the horizon if we continue to breed like rats. We have a narrow window of opportunity to curb the exponential population growth curve through education and equal rights for women, before really bad things start to happen, like in China. Equal opportunities in education and the workplace lead to birth rates leveling out. Bummer though, in this country we seem to be getting dumber and more misogynistic as time goes on.

We can wait until war and pestilence does it for us. Merely take no action. Big business opportunities in war and pestilence.