Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
From the first paragraph of Paul's magnificent post, below, "American Catholicism's Pact with the Devil":
"At the prospect that institutions associated with the Catholic Church would be required to offer to their employees health insurance covering contraception and abortifacients, the bishops, priests, and nuns scream bloody murder. But they raise no objection at all to the fact that Catholic employers and corporations, large and small, owned wholly or owned by Roman Catholics will be required to do the same. The freedom of the church as an institution to distance itself from that which its doctrines decry as morally wrong is considered sacrosanct. The liberty of its members – not to mention the liberty belonging to the adherents of other Christian sects, to Jews, Muslims, and non-believers – to do the same they are perfectly willing to sacrifice."
Needless to say, Paul's entire post represents a wonder of analysis, historical knowledge, compelling prose, and sheer righteous indignation But I found myself reading that opening paragraph--just that one paragraph--three times in a row, marveling.
The point Paul makes is vital. It is also, or should be, obvious: If it is wrong to force the bishops to violate their consciences, then it is surely just as wrong to force lay Catholics--or, as Paul remarks, Jews, Muslims, non-believers and members of other Christian denominations--to violate their own consciences. But I had never thought of that before.
Here I am, consciously attempting, in much of my life, to do my humble best on behalf of the ideal of liberty. Yet the slow, steady advance of the welfare state has so affected the whole intellectual and moral climate--has so affected my own thinking--that a truly fundamental point had simply failed to occur to me.
"To see what is in front of one's nose," George Orwell once wrote, "needs a constant struggle."
For so fiercely and untiringly engaging in that struggle, God bless Paul Rahe.
As for me? Mea maxima culpa.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
This, from NYT's (typically surreal) editorial will get repeated again, and again, and again. (The following paragraph is a quote.)
Besides, contraceptive access is already in place in 28 states, and has been the law in New York for a decade, without inflicting the slightest blow to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which has complied.
(End of quote.) The lesson is, every compromise is a surrender.
Edited on February 11, 2012 at 8:40pmApr '11
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
And, with one failure to stand firm, the whole edifice could crumble. Who knew we were at that point? But, we all did, really. Didn't we?
2012 is truly the inflection point: Stand up or be put down.
May '10
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
But Peter, the contraception issue is just a small, specific example of what has been fundamentally wrong with ObamaCare from the day of its own conception. It is government forcing free people to do something against their own will. Contraception happens to be a specific that happens to run afoul of the First Amendment. But, if there were no Catholic Church (or others) to be morally offended on this point, would that then make the whole thing acceptable? No, I say. The offense is in the very concept of force, no matter how well-intended the desire to provide health care for all.
Years ago I joined a group protesting City Hall's decision to move a major "Big Box Store" into our residential neighborhood so that the city could gain the sales tax. As luck would have it, we discovered Burrowing Owls inhabiting the site and were able to use environmental law to stop the development. We didn't much care about the owls, they were a means to an end. In a very real sense, the contraception issue is, likewise, a means to an end. It's a real issue, but it is a small issue in comparison.
Apr '11
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
Mr. Rahe's post was magnificent.
But so far the bishops are standing firm:
"These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected."
You can find the rest over at Hot Air. Let's hope the bishops continue to stand firm. I think they are trying to get the horse back in the barn after they left the door open, but at this point I will accept help wherever it comes from.
Jun '11
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
Peter Robinson: If it is wrong to force the bishops to violate their consciences, then it is surely just as wrong to force lay Catholics--or, as Paul remarks, Jews, Muslims, non-believers and members of other Christian denominations--to violate their own consciences. But I had never thought of that before.
This, to me, illustrates the true victory for the Left in the ongoing struggle for our culture. The Right is so easily distracted by the Left to chase rabbit trails, like the separation of church and state (a critical concern, to be sure) when the real aim — which is too often successful due to the Right's near pathological acceptance of the terms of the arguments as set up by the Left — is consolidation of power at the federal level. In theory, conservatives seem to know this — just listen to any speech by Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio. But for some reason, they seem blinded to this when it is actually unfolding in front of their eyes. I have this mental picture of, in this case, the Administration performing mischief with one hand while distracting the Right with a shiny object in the other.
Feb '12
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
Tom Lindholtz- Oh that owl of outrage.. Paul Rahe is one wise ol' owl. Have you sat out in the yard at night and felt something, looked up, to see and owl looking down at you.. Quite amazing.
Obama is no wise owl.
Apr '11
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
Yes, they simply have to stand up and hold firm. Is it odd I'm praying for the fount of Catholic teaching in America to actually hold to it?
Apr '11
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
In a sense, we will find out who they really are, what they truly believe, and what they are willing to fight for. Let's hope it's who they profess to be.
Feb '11
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
I have been beating that drum all along here. The First Amendment does not speak of organized religion or churches or any such thing. (Not even an oblique reference such as "militias.")
Freedom of religion is an individual right and compromise is not an option.
Jun '10
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
This same point is often overlooked in the same-sex marriage debate. Some of the laws have added clauses to expressly protect priests or other ministers from being forced to marry same-sex couples, and proponents say "see, we've accommodated religious liberty."
But what about businesses owned by Catholics, Mormons, Muslims that would be required by law to for instance provide all "spousal" benefits to same-sex couples in violation of their religious beliefs? Shouldn't the same conscience clause protections apply there as well?
May '10
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
Doc Molloy -- I am a big fan of owls. At one time we had a huge old barn owl that lived in a redwood tree in our yard. What a sight to see him come and go. And, not an owl, but now we have a Great blue Heron who comes to lunch in our koi pond. :-( Much as I hate his devastation of my fish, I greatly admire his majestic arrivals and departures.
But my point was that, in our battle with Price Club and the city, the Burrowing Owls were a convenient excuse to prevent our neighborhood from being steam rolled. Though we used the owls presence, our primary concern was not owls, but people.
So, in this case, contraception is a convenient, if real, means to address a principle of greater import: the assault on a wide range of freedoms that are bound up in ObamaCare. The owls deserved protection, I guess. Catholic (and other) religious beliefs and practice deseerve protection, I know. But in both cases there are much, much greater issues at stake.
May '10
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
Joseph Stanko -- Good point. What about the rights of Catholic (and other) landlords who have religious convictions about renting to same-sex couples? Government mandates, however well-intended, always trample on someone's freedom.
Oct '10
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
Peter, you should take a look at John Cochrane's article in the WSJ this past Thursday. He says that critics should not just focus on the Catholic church but on everyone by asking why any of us should be forced to subsidize someone else's birth control. From his article: "There is also the issue of religious freedom. Our nation is divided on social issues. The natural compromise is simple: Birth control, abortion and other contentious practices are permitted. But those who object don't have to pay for them. The federal takeover of medicine prevents us from reaching these natural compromises and needlessly divides our society."
Jul '11
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
And that's the point-they hide contraception behind the guise of "women's health", and boom-it's health care.
I wonder if Obamacare will pay for the inevitable therapy I will need in order to come to grips with the sheer, ebullient madness that is Progressivism, and how Progressives simultaneously trample that which they hold up as an ideal-the individual, and his or her freedom.
Nothing's free if I'm forced to take it, because something's been taken from me in the forcing.
Jun '11
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
That was my thought as well. Of course, my impoverished education causes me, in dismay, to end up saying that several times a day, followed by the self-appelation of that monk in The Name of the Rose, "Stupido! Stupido!"
Apr '11
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
Yeah, well, Rahe may have blown your mind, but I think he's blowing a few gaskets too.
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
Peter, I posted a comment on Paul's page. The post is very illuminating and largely on target about the confusion of the Sermon on the Mount with, say, Social Security, but that paragraph is just incorrect. It is categorically not true that the bishops "raised no objection" to the burden placed on others of conscience. In fact, in their initial letter, they proved to be among the only ones who have. Just because the press does not report what the bishops do and say doesn't mean they have not said it.
As Doc points out, the bishops continue this line of attack in the statement they released on Friday about the "accommodation." The bishops can be blamed for many many things, but saying they "raise no objections" and "are perfectly willing to sacrifice" the religious liberty of others is just not true here.
Aug '10
Re: Paul Rahe Just Blew My Mind
Im with you Peter, the structure of the article and it's content came togethr for me like a unified field theory of history. beautifully thoughtful.
and to simplify things even more, my objection :
Edited on February 12, 2012 at 5:11pmI don't want to do that . I have my reasons.