Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Few Thoughts on Indiana and Coercion
Conservatives are allergic to government coercion. This allergy informs all of our positions on public policy. It informs out position on religious freedom. The reason liberals can’t tell the difference between the promotion of liberty and promotion of “hate” all comes down to our differing views of coercion. For conservatives, political coercion is the original sin of authoritarian governments. For liberals, it is the glue that binds their entire moral identity.
Consider two pillars of the progressive left: Social Security and Obamacare. Would either of these programs survive even a month if they weren’t compulsory? Would any liberal program survive? And if this kind of coercion represents a social good, then it would not seem at all unethical to force a business owner into an involuntary transaction. Once you cross that line, “hate” is the only logical explanation for opposing their policies.
(Incidentally, I used to allowed for the possibility that the charge of “hate” is just an attempt to shut down debate by casting conservatives as unreasonable, but I have talked to enough liberals to know that they actually believe this stuff).
This is how a group of people convinces themselves that a law that allows free choice on all sides is like Jim Crow, but a law that limits choice and compels involuntary transactions is the opposite of Jim Crow. What is consistent then and now, is that the same party is pushing the coercion.
Published in General, Law, Politics
Agreed. Even there, though, I think the liberals are just playing the long game: get control and then impose the new view from a position of strength after having destroyed the mechanisms of restraint.
Marci–you should follow what Rachel writes on this and send her your thoughts. She’d benefit from them. She’s made it her cause and I’m so happy to see it. Reform is desperately needed. We need to be a more forgiving and constructive society for people who make mistakes.
I will, Merina. Thank you. I look at prisons and I feel like Elliott in ET when he freed the frogs. :)
Now back to the scheduled programming. :)
This debate proves the point. How much coercion is acceptable (if any) defines the libertarian/conservative divide on the right. For the left, coercion is (to borrow from Reggie Jackson) the stick that stirs the drink. Their aspirations require it. Nothing is possible without it. This is why they want to ditch the Electoral College. 50+1 makes coercing a lot easier.
I wish some Liberal would have the guts to run a campaign on “Compassionate Coercion.” At least that would be honest. Liz?
It’s not the conservative/libertarian divide. It’s the libertarian/statist divide.
Does it say somewhere in bible that you are not allowed to make cakes for gay people? Bakery in not a church.
Lawful discrimination exists in everything everywhere.
Maybe we need to accept the fact that we need an IRS Code type of book to address exceptions we are willing to make such as the Catholic Church’s right to not ordain women priests.
This so interesting in light of the Amish problem with the state of Wisconsin right now.
(disclaimer: I didn’t read through the comments, so apologies if these points have already been made…)
Welllll, sorta…
For progressives, not all coercion is created equal. Coercion for the purpose of correcting past “mistakes” is acceptable and/or encouraged. They tend to prefer this coercion be exercised by governments (because it provides the veneer of legitimacy), but not necessarily so (hence the endorsement of “direct action”).
But then, conservatives too do not see all coercion as being equal. Coercion for the purpose of safeguarding (conserving) “the good parts of society” is often considered acceptable by many (most?) conservatives.
The classical libertarian view is that coercion is an evil unto itself, and cannot be acceptable simply because it’s being used for any “good cause”. The trick (and the crux of most libertarian debates, IMHO) is how to define “coercion”.
A Marxist might argue that the exchange of money for labour qualifies as coercion, for example, while a LGBT activist might argue that refusing to perform labour when offered money in exchange (like, say, baking a cake, for example) qualifies as coercion. The abortion debate revolves around the question of whether or not a fetus is capable of being coerced. Etc, etc, etc…
I’m not aware of any baker that has refused to bake cakes for gay people. Rather, some bakers have refused to bake cakes for gay weddings.
That is a pretty important distinction.
Indiana is changing its RFRA to make sure that it can’t be used to justify “discrimination”. So the Church would never be able to use it to defend the male only priesthood, a rule that it considers part of divine positive law. So I guess it will only be effective to allow Indiana Indians to use drugs?
Yea, but I didn’t say they were completely unrelated. I just said the relationship was very modest. At the margin, it is probably true that letting gay people get married will lead to slightly more gay couples getting children by means of ARTs. I get that, but if what you object to is ARTs, getting worked up about gay marriage is a funny way to show it. ARTs long predate gay marriage, are a nearly entirely heterosexual couple thing today and for any foreseeable future, and can be used by the few gay couples who use it with our without marriage.
When has a church ever been denied the freedom to ordain whoever it wishes?
I don’t see why, at least in principle. I guess it means numerically less instances of discrimination, but it doesn’t make them any less reprehensible.
I think they could be forced to ordain women under the antidiscrimination laws.
Turning your question around, on what basis given the antidiscrimination laws could the Church refuse to ordain women? Women are one of the seven protected classes.
It is a case that hasn’t been made yet, but I knew some women who were upset about being barred from the priesthood. It could absolutely happen.
I’m not a civil rights law expert but my guess is that there are exemptions for religious institutions. If there aren’t, there is an obvious constitutional issue under the free exercise clause in attempting to force a religious institution to hire in violation of its beliefs.
In any event, my question was whether it had ever happened, and you don’t appear to claim that it has.
No, Cato, to my knowledge it has not happened.
I see an increasingly complex legal environment.
I was also thinking of the taxicab drivers who are Muslim who were refusing to transport people who had been drinking or who were accompanied by guide dogs.
Another interesting wrinkle.
It’s going to a million-page book of codes and laws and regulations.
Haven’t read all the intervening comments, but Ross Douthat has an interesting article in the NYT today, linked on RCP, that poses 7 questions for people who say there is no threat to religious people. Good to read and think about.
Good article.
This is going to generate millions of law hours over the next twenty years.
The Amish issue in Wisconsin.
No, it says in the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Most states have similar provisions in their state constitutions (I think). Is religion only to be exercised within a church? Religion isn’t lived in daily public life and the ordinary course of business?
Yes, you know we disagree over the extent of that connectedness. The objection is not simply to ARTs, but rather the changes to the underlying cohesion which results in the decontruction of all this to its components. The change which makes it obvious nowadays that ARTs are not connected to marriage. We won’t agree, but there it is.
One is about refusing to provide a good or service to a person. The other is about refusing to provide a good or service for an event.
It would be akin to comparing someone who refuses to cater to African-American customers with someone who refuses to cater a specific event the caterer disagrees with.
The service provider is discriminating against the event, not against the entire ethnicity.
^This.
Well, at least we can agree on that ^
Well yea, but it’s not refusing to supply a service to the event qua event. It’s not “I don’t do weddings.” It’s refusing to service the event because of the people holding it — gay people. It is very much the same as saying “I do weddings but I don’t do African-American weddings.”
is hogwash.
I wonder if the religious exemption for vaccines will be overturned now.
During World War II, conscientious objectors were allowed to serve in noncombat roles in the military.
I wonder what would happen today.