Tag: religion

Public vs Private Companies

Post author By David
Post date March 26, 2014
No Comments on Public vs Private Companies

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Photo by Paul Riismandel

Coverage of the Hobby Lobby case seems to be consistent in saying that the U.S. Supreme Court is essentially deciding the question of whether not-specifically-religious corporations can exercise religious rights. The issue in this case is requiring insurance coverage for federally determined forms of contraception but if the decision is based on the ability of companies to exercise religious rights then it could also extend to whether companies can choose under what circumstances they will offer their services.

It struck me this morning that the question isn’t really whether corporations can exercise religious rights. The real question is: at what point in the pursuit of profit do individuals diminish or forego their right to religious expression? Those siding with the government in this case are afraid that companies will be able to use the guise of religious belief to get around the expense of some legal mandates. After all, if the Green family (Hobby Lobby) can claim religious belief avoid paying for some expensive forms of birth control for their employees why can’t the Walton family (Walmart) do the same?

Tags Deseret News, religion, Supreme Court

culture politics thoughts

The Liberty Line

In response to my question from yesterday I was surprised to discover that I got an answer and that the answer was an emphatic if ever-tenuous “yes.” We do have reason to celebrate our independence as a nation presently. More important than what the answer was was realizing what line in the sand would determine, at least for me, when the time had come that we no longer had reason to celebrate.

During the course of the festivities yesterday we stopped to pray over our afternoon meal (I’m sure people will not be surprised to learn that we were doing some grilling in the back yard for our meal) and while my brother in law was praying I realized that as long as we enjoyed religious liberty in this country, the freedom to pursue worship as we individually see fit (the only reasonable limitation being that one person cannot compel another to do something based on the first persons religious beliefs and practices), we would have reason to celebrate Independence Day. I don’t recall if there was something said in the prayer that prompted the realization or if it was simply the act of praying itself but the realization was powerful.

There are many other types of liberty in our nation that make our independence worthwhile but for myself I consider that if I had freedom of speech and association, the right to bear arms, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, respect for personal property, and all the other freedoms enshrined in our constitution but had the freedom to practice my religion taken away I would find no cause to celebrate what was left of our independence. On the other hand, if my freedom to live according to my religious belief were adequately protected but all other liberties were unprotected (insofar as they could be without infringing that one right) I would do whatever I could to promote those other natural rights but I would still consider myself blessed to live in a time and place where my religious freedom was recognized.

Tags Constitution, liberty, religion

culture

Freedom OF Religion

[quote]By now everybody in Utah at least has heard about the speech given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks at the BYU-Idaho devotional yesterday on the subject of freedom of religion. It will surprise nobody who knows anything about me to hear that I agree 100% with everything he said.

Considering that I could not hope to add insights beyond those of Elder Oaks some might question why I would bother to write anything about his speech. There are two reasons – first, this subject of our freedom of religion (for any atheists I could comfortably call it “freedom of conscience”) is important to every American who cares about preserving a viable nation where we enjoy any amount of liberty whatsoever and thus I could not pass up the chance to promote that message; and second, when I saw that some of what he said was being misunderstood (as shown in a poll where 2 in 3 respondents disagreed with his assertion that the retaliation and intimidation against supporters of Prop. 8 was similar in nature to the voter-intimidation of blacks in the South) I knew that it was necessary for people who understood what he said to stand up and declare their understanding.

Tags civic participation, connections, issues, religion

culture National

Government Can’t Do Charity

Post author By David
Post date July 30, 2009
12 Comments on Government Can’t Do Charity

Those pushing the need for health care reform spend a lot of time talking about the uninsured and the many unfortunate people who cannot or will not afford to pay for health care. (Mostly they talk about the “cannot pay” people except when they are proposing to have individual mandates, then they start talking about “freeloaders” who don’t get insurance even though they can afford it.) These people claim that health care is a right and (although they don’t use the word) they are proposing that the government can and should provide charity care for those in the “cannot pay” camp. The only problem is that government has been trying to do that for a long time through medicaid and medicare. The fact is that government cannot provide charity care – government can only take from those it chooses to burden and give to those it chooses to help. This warps the system even when it is meant to level the playing field.

Tags Elevated, government, health care, ideal, liberty, money, religion, thoughts

National

Constitutional Amendment I

Post author By David
Post date May 11, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment I

The beauty of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is that they are all short enough that I will be comfortable quoting each amendment in its entirety as I write about it. That may not hold as I get to the later amendments. Here is Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I have heard people who are keen to remind their fellow citizens that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not exist anywhere in our legal foundation. That’s very true, but I would take that a step further and point out the implications of what is said.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

State governments are perfectly free to make laws respecting an establishment of religion – whether that be favoring one specific sect, or prohibiting a sect or a specific religious practice. The key is that the federal legislative branch cannot enshrine a position related to religion. Please keep this in mind (the distinction between the state and federal governments) as it will be a theme of many of my posts on the amendments.

For those who might fear that Utah might use that as an excuse to establish Mormonism as the religion of the state (officially) if they thought they could get away with it I would simply point out that doing so would run counter to the expressed tenets of the LDS church. (I should also point out that this prevents the use of the first amendment as an argument against the legality of the extermination order against Mormons given by Governor Boggs of Missouri in 1838.) The point here is that each state was meant to be free to determine the course that they felt would be the most conducive to the welfare of their residents.

Like the protection of religion, it is Congress, and not the states, which is prohibited from abridging the freedom of the press or of speech and Congress which cannot interfere with the right of the people to peaceably assemble or petition the government. The assumption was that although the states retain the rights to regulate any of those things they would be wise enough not to abuse that ability and that if they did begin to abuse those powers they would feel the negative consequences as other states would reap the benefits of the dissatisfaction generated by abusive states.

Sadly, it is now the states and municipalities which feel the burden of the restrictions in the first amendment (and others) much more than Congress. Congress does not abridge our freedom of religion, but it does abridge the freedom of our once-sovereign states (and communities).

Tags Bill of Rights, change congress, documents, history, liberty, religion

National State

Proposition 8

I have stayed silent on proposition 8 thus far although I don’t imagine that many people would guess wrong if they were to predict my position. I have heard plenty of opposition to the proposition so I know the major reasons for those who oppose it. The most famous reasons for those who support Proposition 8 seem to be the "Six Consequences." I have not read those six consequences, but again, the opposition has been vocal enough that I have a pretty good idea of what those are. Today when I read the statement by Constitutional Law professors from California I decided that it was time to set the record straight about this whole issue. Like so many issues, the rancor and the passion on both sides has served to obscure the real issue and color the arguments into inaccuracy. For my purposes I will stick to the 3 points emphasized in this statement .

The first point is correct only to the first sentence – Proposition 8 would change existing California law. The trick is that there is nothing inherently bad about changing our existing written laws, especially when those laws are unreasonable in any way (self-contradictory, vague, or outside the jurisdiction of law are examples of why a law may be considered unreasonable). Those arguing in favor of Proposition 8 are arguing that the definition of marriage falls outside the jurisdiction of human law. To them it is not a matter of discrimination, it is a belief that the following statement is fundamentally false on simple semantic grounds:

Proposition 8 would forbid government officials from according gay men and lesbians a fundamental right they now enjoy and that all other adults in California will continue to enjoy: the right to marry a person of their choice.

The real argument behind Proposition 8 is that no person has the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice but that, in fact, every person finds that their choice is limited by the very definition of what constitutes marriage. At the core, what proponents of proposition 8 are claiming is that marriage is not a man-made construct and cannot be made to conform to the changing whims of society. When society forbade interracial marriage half a century ago it did not mean that interracial couples could not meet the criterion of marriage, only that society was too myopic to tolerate such a marriage.

The real argument of Proposition 8 supporters rests on two premises: 1) that what constitutes marriage is defined by God and not by society, and 2) that God’s definition of marriage requires (among any other criterion) that the parties to marriage may not share a common gender. Anyone who accepts those two premises (as I do) must support this proposition or be in open rebellion against God. (Those who reject these two premises cannot be judged by their fellow men to be in such rebellion on this issue.)

There are two very unfortunate truths regarding the arguments being made by most proponents of Proposition 8. First, they give little if any emphasis to their real argument (as stated above) preferring instead to try to make their case in terms of human law (which argument is naturally riddled with bias and inaccuracy as I will show below). Second, they fail to articulate that – contrary to what opponents claim in order to accuse them of bigotry and discrimination – while they believe that marriage by its nature cannot be entered into in a homosexual fashion they do not argue that gays and lesbians do not have the same fundamental rights as all other people, namely the rights to devote their lives to the person of their choice, to share their earthly possessions with the person of their choice, to offer care and support for the person of their choice in times of emotional, financial, physical, or mental distress (or comfort). In other words, gays have every right to cohabitate, enjoy hospital visitation and inheritance rights, and everything else commonly associated with marriage, but we assert that it is a matter of fact, and not a matter of discrimination that such sharing does not meet the qualifications for the term "marriage."

What is being decided by the voters of California is whether they will make California law conform with the definition of marriage espoused by the proponents which states that a marriage cannot be made without the participation of both a man and a woman or if they will insist in California law that marriage is a human social construct that may be altered according to the prevailing views of society.

The second point is correct on the surface and clearly exposes a flaw in the argument by Prop. 8 proponents. The tax exempt status of churches who refuse to perform marriages for same sex couples will receive the same protection regardless of the outcome of Prop. 8. Historically the tax exempt status of churches has been regularly challenged and rarely overturned. Going forward, it will be regularly challenged and occasionally overturned. The statement by the law professors ignores the truth behind such challenges which is that taking a position against legalized same sex marriage is as good an excuse as any for a group to get angry at a church and challenge their tax exempt status.

The third point is like the second in that it is technically correct and exposes a flaw in the arguments of proponents. Proposition 8 is neither necessary nor sufficient to "prevent public schools from teaching issues relating to marriage by same-sex couples to children whose parents oppose that instruction." Here the statement by the law professors ignores the facts that regardless of what is written in the books of law, very few parents have the time or the expertise to exercise their "absolute right to review all materials provided as part of a school’s comprehensive sexual health education program and to have their children excused from participation," and that legal recognition of same sex marriage by the state gives tacit permission for those who would wish to push such an agenda to test the limits of what parents will permit.

Yes, I just offered correction on the statement of 54 constitutional law professors – including Lawrence Lessig (who I esteem very highly) – and yet the only point that anyone can disagree about is the one that this issue is meant to resolve. In other words, the voters of California will go to the polls to decide between me and those who disagree with me as far as California law is concerned. On the other points everyone should stop their posturing and pointing out of technicalities. The real issue is the question of semantics.

Tags California, gay marriage, government, marriage, morality, Prop 8, religion

culture

Equal Before the Law

In Sunday school today we were talking, among other things, about the freedom of conscience that was protected under Nephite law. The teacher (I can’t remember his name since it was our first week in a new ward) made the statement that all men were equal before the law. The thought that followed in my mind was that this was the highest equality we should strive for in society – that all men would be equal before the law. We need not seek for all men to be equal in material posessions, or in educational attainment, but only that all be treated equally in the eyes of the law and that there be no legal basis for any kind of discrimination with regards to the various kinds of opportunity that a person might seek.

Tags laws, liberty, religion

General

Government and Religion

I was reading Doctrine and Covenants section 134 today. I have read it before on various occasions, but my perspective on government has sharpened considerably since the last time I read it and it struck a chord with me as a wonderful description of the proper interaction between government and religious organizations.

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

Doctrine and Covenants 34:2-4

That resonates with my thoughts that government is a divinely sanctioned necessity for maintaining secular order in an otherwise chaotic world and also that the purposes of government are limited to establishing that order while stopping short of interfering with the legitimate agency of its citizens.

I wonder if any government has ever managed to avoid overstepping those very limited bounds consistently.

Tags Doctrine and Covenants, government, religion, scriptures

culture

Wired for Authoritarianism

Post author By David
Post date May 1, 2008
12 Comments on Wired for Authoritarianism

Starting by referring to two posts I wrote back in January, Obi wan Liberali posts More Thoughts on Authoritarian Thinking. I have to say that, like Obi wan, I am deeply concerned about our shift towards a more authoritarian society. I also agree that the positions publicly identified as conservative are tending towards greater social authoritarianism although I’m not sure they are becoming more authoritarian economically. On the other hand, the positions publicly identified as liberal have always been likely to take an authoritarian stance economically while remaining libertarian in the social arena.

I believe that Obi wan is correct in identifying two classifications of authoritarians – most being authoritarian followers, and the minority being authoritarian leaders (he calls them dominators). Obi identifies religion as being naturally authoritarian in structure. While I agree that religion is generally authoritarian I don’t believe that this is peculiar to religion – I believe that authoritarianism is human nature.

People who strive for power are naturally going to be authoritarian leaders. Leadership based solely on logic and persuasion is not a dependable way to maintain authority. Those who rely on persuasion are not concerned about their personal authority. The reason that so many people qualify as authoritarian followers is a combination of short-sightedness and laziness. Some people are unwilling to do the work necessary to form their own opinions so they follow whatever authoritarian leader they are inclined to follow. Others are willing to do the work to form their own opinions, but they fail to foresee the dangers of supporting the authoritarian pursuits of those who are ideologically in line with the positions they have chosen.

The reason that authoritarian systems are so worrisome to me is that I view personal responsibility to be the foundation and the working definition of liberty. Authoritarianism is antithetical to personal liberty and personal responsibility. People who are unwilling to take the time to gather the information to form their own opinions will always be seeking for someone to follow politically, religiously, or in any other arena. People who will put forth that effort will enjoy the fruits of their personal liberty only to the extent that they are allowed to – meaning that they cannot enjoy the fruits of liberty in a situation where their opportunity to make choices is cut short by the system. This applies to equally economic, political, and religious systems.

Tags liberty, religion

culture

Case for Absitnence

I was surprised as I read this Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Caitlin Flanagan. I doubt it was her intent, but I found a very strong argument in favor of abstinence as the preferred attitude toward extra-marital sex. She argues that there is a double standard related to the burdens of teenage pregnancy that falls more heavily on girls than on boys.

. . . the last scene [of “Juno”] brought tears to my eyes. To see a young daughter, faced with the terrible fact of a pregnancy, unscathed by it and completely her old self again was magical.

And that’s why “Juno” is a fairy tale. As any woman who has ever chosen (or been forced) [to give a child up for adoption] can tell you, surrendering a baby whom you will never know comes with a steep and lifelong cost. Nor is an abortion psychologically or physically simple. It is an invasive and frightening procedure, and for some adolescent girls it constitutes part of their first gynecological exam. I know grown women who’ve wept bitterly after abortions, no matter how sound their decisions were. How much harder are these procedures for girls, whose moral and emotional universe is just taking shape?

Of course those who disapprove of abstinence education also want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. On that everyone is agreed. The problem that they ignore is the fundamental fact that the natural result of sexual activity is pregnancy. We can lower the chances, but we can’t eliminate them. Regardless of what they may wish, there are side effects to abortion as well.

It would be helpful for the pro-life groups to admit that their preference for adoption over abortion is not without side-effects either. The reality is that regardless of the course taken afterwards, the universal result of unwanted pregnancies is emotional pain and suffering for the mother if not for anyone else.

Ms. Flanagan wonders if there is a way to level the difference in the burdens between teenage fathers who can escape the consequences in many cases and teenage mothers who can’t. Even her own words seem to promise that the answer is no.

Pregnancy robs a teenager of her girlhood. This stark fact is one reason girls used to be so carefully guarded and protected — in a system that at once limited their horizons and safeguarded them from devastating consequences. The feminist historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg has written that “however prudish and ‘uptight’ the Victorians were, our ancestors had a deep commitment to girls.”

We, too, have a deep commitment to girls, and ours centers not on protecting their chastity, but on supporting their ability to compete with boys, to be free — perhaps for the first time in history — from the restraints that kept women from achieving on the same level. Now we have to ask ourselves this question: Does the full enfranchisement of girls depend on their being sexually liberated? And if it does, can we somehow change or diminish among the very young the trauma of pregnancy, the occasional result of even safe sex?

The trauma that will always accompany unwanted pregnancy has become more common as we first accept that “boys will be boys” and then we glorify that attitude, excusing (and demeaning) young men as being unable to control themselves. We have followed that moral irresponsibility by trying to teach our girls to be boys in adopting a callous attitude about sex. Sexual activity was never meant to be taken lightly which is why it was meant to be reserved for a marriage relationship. Any other relationship and it does not matter what precautions you take, you are flirting with the consequences of pregnancy and STDs.

This is why we must teach young women to guard themselves and we must teach young men to guard the young women they care about. This teaching is not meant to be done publicly. It should be undertaken within the setting of family. No other setting can ever be fully satisfactory for the intimacy of discussion that is warranted on this subject.

Tags morality, New York Times, religion