President Obama and the First Amendment
I realize that a little below this, Emily has an excellent post covering the HHS mandate that now has many of the Catholic bishops telling their flocks that the Obama Administration has declared war on their church. In my mind, however, one of the most frustrating aspects of this story is precisely that it is reported as a story about contraception. It really has little to do with contraception, and everything to do with the First Amendment and the free exercise of faith.
It is one reason that even liberal Catholics such as E.J. Dionne are now criticizing the administration. Plainly the administration reckoned that contraception is less controversial than abortion, that American Catholics largely ignore their church on this issue, and that the bishops have lost a great deal of credibility with their flocks for a host of reasons. All this is correct. The mistake is this: while abortion doesn't affect the church or its bishops directly, this mandate does: it means the federal government telling them how to run their own institutions. Hence the reaction, and hence the great miscalculation.
The point is this: A nation based on liberty depends on a public square thick with private and religious organizations. When you drive them off that square, government usually takes their places, at higher cost and with worse results. Already Catholic institutions have been shoved off the public square in the adoption business, and the Obama administration denied the Catholic organization the contract to treat victims of sexual trafficking even though it had the highest rating. The bishops see this.
Over at National Review, Yuval Levin has the best substantive analysis of the religious liberty issues I have seen. If only our bishops could write and teach as clearly as Yuval ...
Here's the money paragraph:
In this sense, what is at issue in the controversy over the administration’s rule is not just the question of religious liberty but the question of non-governmental institutions in a free society. Does civil society consist of a set of institutions that help the government achieve its purposes as it defines them when their doing so might be more efficient or convenient than the state’s doing so itself, or does civil society consist of an assortment of efforts by citizens to band together in pursuit of mutual aims and goods as they understand them? Is it an extension of the state or of the community? In this arena, as in a great many others, the administration is clearly determined to see civil society as merely an extension of the state, and to clear out civil society—clearing out the mediating layers between the individual and the state—when it seems to stand in the way of achieving the president’s agenda. The idea is to leave as few non-individual players as possible in the private sphere, and to turn those few that are left into agents of the government. This is the logic of a lot of the administration’s approach to the private economy, not just to civil society. It is key to the design of Obamacare (which aims to yield massive consolidation in the insurance sector, leaving just a handful of very large insurers that would function as public utilities), of significant portions of Dodd-Frank (which would privilege and protect a few very large banks that would function as public utilities while strangling all the others with red tape), and of much of the regulatory agenda of the left. And it is all the more so the character of the administration’s approach to charitable institutions. It is an attack on mediating institutions of all sorts, moved by the genuine belief that they are obstacles to a good society.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
Bill,
As an Orthodox Jew I have a sophisticated and nuanced position about the first 40 days from conception. After that there is very little difference between my Orthodox Jewish position and the Catholic position. Maybe a dejure difference but not a defacto difference.
The contempt which Obama and company hold all Religious people is egregiously evil. I would rather (and this is going some for me) live under a law written by the bishops then go on allowing the genderless, amoral, perverse Obama Administration play with the lives of everyone.
Regards,
Jim
Edited on January 31, 2012 at 7:45pmNov '10
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
If only our bishops could write and teach as clearly as Yuval...
Or as Harry Jaffa put it at a conference on Progressivism and American Liberalism at Claremont McKenna some years ago:
"The priority of the right to worship God leads to the social contract which is the basis of limited government. By abandoning the social contract, we will abandon the idea of limited government."
More here.
Nov '10
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
"It really has little to do with contraception, and everything to do with the First Amendment and the free exercise of faith." Precisely, but it is being reported that way deliberately, by people who know exactly what they're doing.
I think the bishops are rather late to this thing. (And the Catholic left in general has been largely AWOL ever since God's Other Son entered the Oval Office. Indeed, it's almost a sign of the End Times for a Renfield like E. J. Dionne to criticize him.) For, apart from the rights issue, this damned thing adds even more to the titanic burden of debt to be born by future generations --a "social justice" issue about which the Church's prophetic voice has been scandalously silent. And it is a further example of the way the modern welfare state --especially under an ideologue like Obama-- works to replace the horizontal relationships that unite people in traditional communities, with vertical relationships that bind atomized individuals to the State.
Oct '10
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
All the 'conscience exceptions' in the world won't help if when life is effectively nationalized. Try to imagine the good Samaritan bidding on the contract to assist the beaten traveler.
Jan '11
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
"Does civil society consist of a set of institutions that help the government achieve its purposes " ... " or does civil society consist of an assortment of efforts by citizens to band together in pursuit of mutual aims and goods as they understand them? Is it an extension of the state or of the community?"
(I wrote a post on this very topic yesterday, and received no responses. Undaunted ... I try again. I'm nothing if not stubborn.)
If we understand government to be based on the consent of the governed, then its powers are limited to what we, the governed, consented to.
We the governed did not consent to a universal blanket authority for the state to fix every problem and use every coercive power available. Instead, we consented to specific and narrowly documented areas that the government is responsible for.
That's why the [mandate] and the [commerce clause] and now the [religious freedom] battles are all related. It's all about the determination of the federal government to claim blanket authority for all public services and charities. It's about unlimited power to "serve," i.e., unlimited power to rule.
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
At least the Ricochet community gets it. The mandate is part and parcel of the philosophy or force behind the Affordable Care Act. Also, the sooner the Administration rids the public square of these pesky religious outfits, the easier it will become for the government to make all the decisions.
The great irony is this: Had Obama simply allowed a religious exemption in line with the traditional understanding, he would still have made a huge step forward for force (insurers and employers with objections would still have to comply) without the controversy and the opposition that he generated by overreaching for religious outfits too. That's what his liberal Catholic buddies were advising him to do.
Sep '10
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
Well, I'm relieved to see Team Obama score one on their own net instead of us. Go team.
Dec '10
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
Robert Lux: If only our bishops could write and teach as clearly as Yuval...
Or as Harry Jaffa put it at a conference on Progressivism and American Liberalism at Claremont McKenna some years ago:
"The priority of the right to worship God leads to the social contract which is the basis of limited government. By abandoning the social contract, we will abandon the idea of limited government."
More here. · 1 hour ago
Robert,
My objections in the first forty days are not made on the basis of Jewish Law. I have a point of view which divides the pregnancy into a bimester (certainly not a trimester like Roe v Wade). I feel that Right (Kantian) can be applied after the first 40 days of pregancy. The first 40 days and before are covered by the Dignity of Humanity a Virtue (Kant).
Activities in the first forty days can be strongly regulated even as a Virtue. However, the crime of murder with the corresponding ultimate punishment would not then be an issue until the 40 day boundry was passed.
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
Bill, great point. You're absolutely right that the crux of this story concerns the first amendment. It's absurd that the Times' story just makes a passing reference to the idea of religious freedom! More absurd, even, than young women who think they have a "right" to subsidized birth control.
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
The key to understanding this is the fact that Progressivism is itself a substitute for religion. It even has an eschatology.
Feb '11
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
I think you are wrong that the bishops lack clarity or the ability to convey their position clearly. See this video, with the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Timothy Dolan.
Money quote: "Never before has the federal government forced individuals or organizations to go out in the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience." Brief, pithy, perhaps too many baseball references, but of the people.(He's my bishop, I'm so proud of him.)
Jan '11
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
Bill McGurn, WSJ 1/31/12: In the end, the arguments for Mr. Romney come down to this: He has executive experience in both business and government, he's got the most money and the best organization, and he's electable. They are good points. Still, they add up to one argument by résumé and two from process.
Those of us who believed that a primary fight would toughen Mr. Romney up have little to show for it. Far from sharpening his proposals to reach out to a GOP electorate hungry for a candidate with a bold conservative agenda, Mr. Romney has limited his new toughness to increasingly negative attacks on Mr. Gingrich's character. It's beginning to make what we all assumed was a weakness look much more like arrogance.
That's what money does, Mr. McGurn. It lends itself to over the top propaganda. It's all Mitt has going for him. He's not a debater, Obama will clean the floor with him.
Finish off Newt, you say? Perhaps, but then what? Republicans will have chosen a primary winner that can't win the presidency. And isn't that what all this hullabaloo is about?
Jan '11
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
Jan '11
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
James Gawron: Bill,
As an Orthodox Jew I have a sophisticated and nuanced position about the first 40 days from conception. After that there is very little difference between my Orthodox Jewish position and the Catholic position.
A sophisticated and nuanced position? And what might they be? I'm curious because I can't reconcile that with the fact that a fertilized egg is created by two living, metabolically active human cells joining together to comprise a human being. Certainly, the human being undergoes in utero changes, and continues to do so postpartum for the rest of it's life. I think it takes more than sophistication and nuance to get past the human being from conception issue, but you seem to have done it. I'm interested particularly in the 40th to 41st day transition of status.
I've heard the "unable to survive on it's own argument," but that always made me wonder what we should do with all those nursing home patients now burdening Medicare and Medicaid, since many of them than cannot survive on their own. Are there sophisticated, nuanced, and date specific answers to that issue, too?
Jun '10
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
The important thing the Catholic Bishops are doing is framing this correctly as an attack on conscience. Everyone has things that violate their conscience so violently that they refuse to do it. Even those without a faith or who are non-believers still are bound to their conscience.
It will bring more to our side and broaden the view of those who think this isn't a big deal.
Jun '10
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
It really brings to mind Dr. Sowell's comments in an interview with Peter not too long ago on how "rights" are always being simply made up. The "right" to plastic surgery, the "right" to free healthcare are simply fabricated out of nothingness.
If only we had a founding document that told us where "Rights" come from.... that sure would be useful in times like these...
Dec '11
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
Mama Toad: I think you are wrong that the bishops lack clarity or the ability to convey their position clearly. See this video, with the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Timothy Dolan.
Money quote: "Never before has the federal government forced individuals or organizations to go out in the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience." Brief, pithy, perhaps too many baseball references, but of the people.(He's my bishop, I'm so proud of him.) · 17 hours ago
Mama,
It's not the content of His Excellency's comments that concern me. It's their timing. On every significant public issue, Cardinal-designate Dolan has been slow or late, reactionary in the worst way. The Obama administration has telegraphed every move since BHO's campaign and we are still caught flat footed.
Dec '10
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
Dec '10
Re: President Obama and the First Amendment
Anon
James Gawron: Bill,
As an Orthodox Jew I have a sophisticated and nuanced position about the first 40 days from conception. After that there is very little difference between my Orthodox Jewish position and the Catholic position.
A sophisticated and nuanced position? And what might they be? I'm curious because I can't reconcile that with the fact that a fertilized egg is created by two living, metabolically active human cells joining together to comprise a human being. Certainly, the human being undergoes in utero changes, and continues to do so postpartum for the rest of it's life. I think it takes more than sophistication and nuance to get past the human being from conception issue, but you seem to have done it. I'm interested particularly in the 40th to 41st day transition of status.
· 16 hours ago
Anon, when your wife has her period would you like to call the Coroner or should I?
Maybe there was foul play and the only way to find out is an investigation.
Try to think about this.
Regards,
Jim