Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
Sen. Boxer and others are trying mightily to turn the HHS decision into an assertion that the fight is over contraception: in their framing, not subsidizing something free to all equals a desire to deny it outright. By their own logic, then they want people to be blind, since they aren't providing glasses for free. If that's silly, so is the assertion about contraceptives.
The real issue is liberty, the liberty of conscience, which doesn't deny anyone what is readily available, but respects the conscience of the individual to differ from current orthodoxy. The parable Bishop Lori used in his testimony before congress on Feb. 16th is particularly worth reading:
The Testimony of Bishop William Lori
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let's call it "The Parable of the Kosher Deli."
Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.
The Orthodox Jewish community-whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides-expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork-not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths-because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty.
They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced-under threat of severe government sanction -to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.
Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond "But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat." Other supporters add "So many Jews eat pork, and those who don't should just get with the times." Still others say "Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else."
But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.
First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that's not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe-even if they believe in error-that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not-and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in society-even large majorities within the protesting religious community-reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork.
That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed,
some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.
In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day. In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new "accommodation."
You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the "free" ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.
Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn't need to be on the menu, and didn't need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things. First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches.
Second, many of the kosher delis' meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.
This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.
The question before the United States government-right now-is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
But - but - but - you can't use bacon for contraception.
The people whose cars are adorned with bumper stickers saying "Keep Your Laws Off My Body" certainly are eager to push their laws into other people's consciences and religious observances.
Jun '10
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
It's like forcing Amish employers to cover auto insurance premiums for their employees. There are Amish furniture manufacturers that hire non-Amish employees for marketing or accounting. They don't force them to live without cars, but they don't do anything to encourage them to drive cars either.
Jun '11
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
I agree with all of the belief based arguments against the original policy and the "accommodation", but there is one more aspect of the accommodation that I fail to understand. Health insurance is to help protect the consumer from large, expensive health bills and, to some degree, provide a financial incentive (through reduced costs) to have regular check-up and routine tests to help prevent and catch conditions early when they may be able to be treated less expensively and more effectively. Contraception is not "medically necessary" by any stretch of the imagination, so why should insurance be required to pay for something that isn't treating or preventing any illness (other than morning sickness, I suppose)? Why should any employer or insurance company be forced to pay for something that has nothing to do with the purpose of the insurance.
Dec '10
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
Heather,
You have framed the question perfectly. It is exactly analogous to the contraceptive situation. Of course, what comes to mind is the quote of Pastor Niemoller. "First they came for the Catholics and I remained silent. Next they came for the Jews and I remained silent. Next they came for the Protestants and I..."
Time to speak out. Time to get ANGRY!!. There is something to be angry about.
Regards,
Jim
Sep '10
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
Did Congress have anything to say?
Sep '10
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
Boxer has been embarrassing my state for nearly thirty years, it was a little depressing to see her re-elected again in 2010.
Jan '11
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
Because there are so many egregious presumptions in this HHS mandate, we risk skipping over some whoppers.
The next time you hear someone defend this mandate on the grounds that the government must provide the poor with equal access, note the time and date - because it will be from that moment forward that you can effectively dismiss that person's opinion as muddled nonsense.
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
The answer to the question that you pose at the end, Heather, is that the story will have a happy ending only if Barack Obama is soundly defeated in 2012. Whether that will happen will depend upon whether the Republican Party finds a plausible candidate who can articulate the case for liberty in these and in other matters, and, alas, it also depends on events.
Feb '11
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
Because health "insurance" is a misnomer. It's just how we pay for healthcare, routine or otherwise. Eyecare, dental, routine tests all have nothing to do with insurance, yet employers pay for them.
May '10
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...Heather Higgins · 1 hour agoSen. Boxer and others are trying mightily to turn the HHS decision into an assertion that the fight is over contraception: in their framing, not subsidizing something free to all equals a desire to deny it outright. By their own logic, then they want people to be blind, since they aren't providing glasses for free. If that's silly, so is the assertion about contraceptives.By this logic, too, the government should provide us all with full-size automobiles or SUVs. After all,nif they are going to provide contraceptives to all young pubescent girls, don't they need their boyfriends to have a car with a comfortable back seat? Imagine trying to make good use of their contraceptives in a Smart Car.
Feb '11
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
A more precise analogy would be: all grocery purchases are covered by insurance policies. Nothing prevents you from buying your own groceries, but people prefer to carry insurance because of extreme pricing that sometimes occurs for certain items....milk $400/quart and things like that. Pork, though, is very affordable and not one of the items for which pricing sometimes goes crazy.
Different food-insurance policies cover different items. Organizations run by Orthodox Jews tend not to cover pork purchases for their employees; this is a minimal problem for the employees because pork is cheap enough to be easily covered by out-of-pocket dollars.
Nancy Pelosi rages that the Orthodox must immediately cease discriminating against pork-lovers and that this "nondescrimination" must be enforced by Federal law.
Jul '11
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
Of private pronouncements, protection,and prosciutto.
Nov '10
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
I've thought of this analogy as well over the past few weeks. In my mind, I can hear my liberal friends responding indignantly, "How can you compare a woman's right to control her reproductive health to a ham sandwich?" Of course, a ham sandwich, while insignificant to a non-Jew, is deeply significant to an orthodox Jew. It is a commodity which can easily (and relatively inexpensively) be obtained elsewhere -- so why on earth would any fair-minded person think of forcing an orthodox Jew to violate his conscience so egregiously, just to make things a bit more convenient for non-kosher or gentile customers. The stakes surrounding contraception issue are powerfully felt on both sides of the argument, and that makes this issue so much more explosive. The supporters of the mandate feel so strongly about the right to contraception (the ham sandwich) that they refuse to recognize how deeply felt is the position of the devout Catholic. It is dismissed as a cover for misogyny, or at best, a silly old-fashioned technicality -- certainly not deserving of respect or justifying their own inconvenience. Worse, they see it as an attack on their own moral rectitude.
Apr '11
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
I remember the days when health insurance wasn't a right, it was actually an incentive provided by employers to entice people to come work for them. That was a time when there were too many jobs and too few workers. Now it's a right! Wow, I didn't see that in the constitution last time I looked.
Jul '11
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
With respect to Casey, Stuart, and Pseudo. Cat is also the "other white meat".
This great analogy and the logic behind it are irrelevant to the mentally ill progressive.
Dec '10
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
DocJay: With respect to Casey, Stuart, and Pseudo. Cat is also the "other white meat".
This great analogy and the logic behind it are irrelevant to the mentally ill progressive. · 10 minutes ago
No, not irrelevant. I am sure they will use EXACTLY this analogy and the logic behind it whenever the government does something that offends their spiritual sensibilities.
Their ability to hold two opposing viewpoints at the same time is one of their great strengths. It's why they've created their own Newspeak.
And it's a truly robust ability.
Dec '10
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
By the way, Spike, the cat in my avatar, weighs 25 lbs. He may not make it past November, depending on how turkey prices go.
Nov '11
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
The question is easy if what we are talking about is contraception and pork.
But the larger question is not so easy to resolve: When must religious practice (as opposed to religious belief) give way to the requirements of law?
For example, no reasonable person would argue that law cannot prohibit a religious practice that subjects female children to a genital surgical procedure called "female circumcision." But then why can't the law prohibit a religious practice that subjects male children to a genital surgical procedure called "male circumcision?"
What I would honestly like to learn is:
What is the principle or set of considerations that will provide a reliable, consistent, and fair jurisprudential guide for deciding whether an ostensibly religious practice (or non-practice, such as not using contraceptives) should be protected as a free exercise of religion or can be prohibited (or mandated)?
I think such quesions will soon become more frequent, and more difficult, as the antipathy between the non-religious and the religious becomes more pronounced, as the two sides of the divide become more intense in their devotion to their views, and especially as welfare state funding of heretofore privately funded activities becomes more ubiquitous.
Edited on February 21, 2012 at 1:03amJul '11
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
Stuart Creque
By the way, Spike, the cat in my avatar, weighs 25 lbs. He may not make it past November, depending on how turkey prices go. · 39 minutes ago
Ha. I grew up with four cats and a golden. One of my kids is horribly allergic but he leaves in a year and some change for college or the military. I miss having one but I think maybe when the boy goes i'll get some big old coon cat since we have coyotes around and no matter how many I kill they keep showing back up.
Feb '11
Re: Of Conscience, contraception, and ham...
Astonishing:
A start to answering your question might be to bear in mind the difference between prohibiting something and requiring it. A law that prohibits assisted suicide will prohibit human sacrifice. This impairment of religious freedom is an unavoidable result of neutral rule.
Requiring religous organizations to offer their employees assisted suicide services would force them to act in violation of their beliefs. The requirement is not an unavoidable consequence of permitting assisted suicide--a state may allow this without forcing others to support it. Even if we presume that a state could legitimately mandate that everyone has a right to assisted suicide, the only appropriate means of achieving this would be for the state to pay for the services directly.
We are now seeing the logical contradictions of this approach to health care "reform." A majority want a "right" to health care, but do not want a state run health system. They pretend to enlist the private sector to provide care more efficiently, but ultimately they must take control of the private sector to enforce the purported "right." Those who claimed to compromise just got a different form of national health care.