The primary point of my first book, The End of Secularism, was to demonstrate that secularism doesn’t do what it claims to do, which is to solve the problem of religious difference. As I look at the administration’s attempt to mandate that religious employers pay for contraceptive products, I see that they have confirmed one of my charges in the book.
I wrote that secularists claim that they are occupying a neutral position in the public square, but in reality they are simply another group of contenders working to implement a vision of community life with which they are comfortable. And guess what? They are not comfortable with many of the fundamental beliefs of Christians. Regrettably, many secularists are also statists. Thus, their discomfort with Christian beliefs results in direct challenges to them in the form of mandatory public policy.
Collectivism is often very appealing to Christians who want to do good for their neighbors. Unfortunately, collectivism is frequently a fellow-traveler of aggressive secularism with little respect for religious liberty. The veil has slipped. I hope we do not too quickly forget what was revealed in that moment. Collectivism gives. But it also takes. And what it takes is very often precious and irreplaceable.
February 15th, 2012 | 1:44 pm | #1
The “secularist neutral” position is one that has always confused me. There’s no such thing as a “neutral” position. All views, religious or non-religious, are worldviews. These are unique ways of seeing the world, and there isn’t a magical middle ground where all views converge into a neutral worldview. The common assumption is, “to be non-religious is normal, and religion is a special, personal view that one chooses over the ‘non-religious neutral’ belief.” That, well, just doesn’t make sense.
The issue of contraceptives, however, comes down to a central question: does contraception fall under what I call ‘universal, necessary medicine?’ For instance, all hospitals, Catholic or otherwise, have to provide IVs. That’s a basic form of medicine necessary for many hospitalizing procedures. Simply put, there are medicines that will have to exist across all hospitals, regardless of whether or not they are religious. It would be uncontroversial for the government to say, “All hospitals, religious or otherwise, must provide IV bags for all patients.” There wouldn’t be a moral discrepancy.
Do contraceptives amount to ‘universal, necessary medicine?’ As a man, I’m unfamiliar with this subject to a large extent as ‘the pill’ will never need to be a concern of mine. This is very much a woman’s issue. With that said, I’m not sure that this constitutes ‘universal, necessary medicine.” While contraceptive is not what many of its detractors make it out to be (merely a lifestyle choice used to promote wanton, orgiastic abandon), I don’t see how it is a medicine necessary for typical hospital (or pharmeceutical) medicine.
Here I’m thinking specifically of the medicinal uses of birth control. Two I know well: (1) ‘the pill’ is often used to control irregular or unsafely erratic periods and (2) some hormonal imbalances which cause bad acne are aided by ‘the pill.’ I know people who use ‘the pill’ for such reasons, and it works for them. My wonder, then, is if there is other medicine that could be used in lieu of ‘the pill’ in order to treat those ailments. Since ‘the pill’ has a specific purpose (preventing the fertilization of an egg) and any other use is secondary, I’m wondering what other medication(s) are available to solve these problems.
So, at the moment, I am like many of you wary of the government mandating the purchasing of contraceptives for religious institutions. This has to do in large part with my doubts about Obamacare, but since the bill hasn’t really played out I’ll se where it goes from here. Most importantly, as someone who isn’t knowledgeable of al of the medicine that goes into contraception, all that I’ve said comes with a tone of uncertainty. This issue isn’t resolved for me, and I definitely don’t think this issue is resolved for America. We all need to approach this issue responsibly and even-headed.
I don’t agree at all with the Catholic stance on contraception, but I still respect their stance for its internal consistency, and I do take seriously the possibility that there is an overriding of religious liberty here.
February 15th, 2012 | 4:21 pm | #2
For starters, I think that what this post (and several other Christians) is ignoring is the fact that the mandate for religious institutions to cover birth control was revised and removed. So if we’re going to say that the initiation of the mandate is a sign of the governments “disdain” for religion than we must also logically accept it’s repeal as a sign of it’s willingness to work with religious institutions.
That aside, I think that the central issue of the bill is being used out of context to serve one’s purposes (whether it be secular or Christian). We seem to have arrived at the point where several Christians are asserting that because the government mandated something that was against a religious belief, that clearly this means that the government (and those in power) have a disdain for Christianity and religious rights as a whole.
For example “And guess what? They are not comfortable with many of the fundamental beliefs of Christians”
So the first question that arises is whether or not being uncomfortable with certain beliefs constitutes a “war on Christianity/religion” that many are making this out to be.
I’m going to admit openly (and I hope that others would as well) that there are several religions with which I am not comfortable with their beliefs, especially in the medical field. As I’ve mentioned several times the example of blood transfusions and Jehovah Witnesses, they view using blood transfusions as morally reprehensible. I, on the other hand, see no moral issue with using blood transfusions (as I’m assuming that many here agree with).
But this is where we need to be careful. According to the logic proposed here, I would be waging war on Jehovah Witness beliefs because I don’t think that blood transfusions are wrong. But is this really the case? I would say not. Is the government “waging war” against Jehovah Witness groups and other sects that don’t believe in surgery just because we require employers to cover such operations? No.
So while I see the point that there is no true neutral position, there is such thing as a position for compromise. I think that this post is a good example of the mindset that is being fueled: “If the government legislates anything that is contradictory to my religious beliefs, it means that they’re coming after my faith.” This creates a false dichotomy of either “You’re with us or against us” which isn’t a productive theme for society.
So we can see that the problem that “seculars” and the government have isn’t with Christianity, it’s merely with contraception (which by the way, they compromised to allow religious institutions exempt). I think that this false dichotomy also ignores the fact that it’s not merely seculars that are for this bill (as the post seems to imply). There are in fact Christians (Catholics for that matter) who aren’t opposed to contraception that would like it covered.
So the second issue is whether or not contraception is a medication that is necessary.
As Nikolai asked “I’m wondering what other medication(s) are available to solve these problems.”
If you ask any Doctor, they’ll say that medicine is an imperfect science. There is no perfectly “right” medication that’s going to work for every patient. Nikolai mentioned contraception being used to treat irregular periods, which I think is a good example. Every woman’s hormonal balance is unique and different, there is no blanket cure for irregular periods. Contraception is often used because it is relatively safe compared to other hormonal therapies.
In my personal experience, I once knew a woman who’s menstruation cycles were so severe that the hormonal imbalance actually gave her bipolar disorder. When she was first maturing her psychosis was once so bad that she became so depressed that she nearly committed suicide. After testing, the doctors realized that it was actually her menstruation cycle that was causing the psychosis. She had two option: contraception or anti-psychotics. As I said, there is no perfect fit for every patient. If she were to take the anti-psychotics, the risks were significantly greater, it still wouldn’t treat the cause just the symptoms, and she would have to take them regularly even though she only needed them for one week a month (so to speak). But, if she took the contraception, it would help stabilize her hormonal balance and the psychosis, and the side effects and risks are minimal in comparison.
Does this mean that contraception is always the best option? No. There is no such thing as a perfect medication. But is contraception often the safest and medically advisable way to go compared to other drugs? Yes.
Doctors don’t have this vendetta against Christians and are just prescribing birth control to every teenage girl with a problem. If there’s a better, safer, more effective, or cheaper drug to treat things like hormonal imbalances than Doctors would proscribe them. But the fact is that often times contraception is the best medical choice to make.
February 16th, 2012 | 12:56 pm | #3
The issue has very little to do with the intrinsic merits of contraception and much more to do with whether the state respects the position of religious organizations which individuals are not required to join, work for, etc. No one has to work at a Catholic institution. No one has to subscribe to their beliefs. Why should the government force Catholic institutions to engage in practices with which they strongly disagree?
February 16th, 2012 | 4:06 pm | #4
This isn’t a response to anyone in particular, but this was a piece of information I wasn’t privy to. Rachel Maddow writes:
How has this not been a bigger deal before?
February 16th, 2012 | 6:04 pm | #5
Nikolai,
“How has this not been a bigger deal before?”
Presumably because it hasn’t been an issue that a white house has addressed, perhaps many simply weren’t aware of it happening in other states, or maybe even people knew but didn’t care nearly as much because it was in some other state and not their own. Another reason is that because it was more ammo to be launched at Obama, media outlets blew it up as large as they could.
Hunter Baker,
“No one has to work at a Catholic institution. No one has to subscribe to their beliefs.”
This is a common argument that I
February 16th, 2012 | 10:54 pm | #6
Sorry, I had a weird problem with my computer that cut that last post short and I had other obligations to fulfill before I could finish my response, hence the time gap.
Hunter Baker,
“No one has to work at a Catholic institution. No one has to subscribe to their beliefs.”
This is a common argument that I hear often and does in fact hold some weight, but it has it’s limitations. It’s true that in a general sense, people choose where they work and have the ability to simply not work where they don’t like it. But I think that we need to be careful in assuming this position. I could just as easily claim that if someone doesn’t like that I abuse my power to wrongly hurt my employees that they simply shouldn’t work there.
And, in fact, this was the logic that was used many years to oppress factory workers and deny basic rights. “If they don’t like it, they can work somewhere else”. This line of reasoning can be dangerous because you risk legitimizing anything.
So then, there must be some other reason why we don’t believe that the government should mandate catholic institutions to cover birth control.
The most effective argument would be, I think, is constitutionality, specifically the first amendment. It could be argued (and is) that forcing Catholic institutions to cover things like contraception is infringing on their right to practice their religious beliefs (abstaining from contraception). But, here we also run into issues. Religious liberty does not have absolute protection. Things like polygamy are outlawed in all 50 states of the U.S. despite the fact that it is a fundamental belief in FLDS.
So since the first amendment isn’t absolute protection for religious practices, we come to the question of where the line is drawn. Another question that arises is whether forcing an institution to cover contraception actually is forcing them to condone or accept that contraception is moral.
Take for example, Nikolai. Nikolai has made it very clear that he is a pacifist. Yet, whenever he makes money, a nice chunk of it is given to the government and in turn funds the military, which obviously takes part in killing people.
Now; is the government forcing Nikolai to accept killing as a moral position and infringing on his religious rights by using his money to kill people abroad? If money is really as connected to religious liberty as we’ve made it to be than there are much graver violations to the First Amendment that we should be concerned about.
I think that we need to be more careful in assuming that this law is wrong based purely on “religious liberty”. We know that religious liberty is limited. The question that I think needs to be talked about is whether this law specifically oversteps the bounds of the First Amendment, and where those lines are drawn and also the question of whether requiring payment towards something that a religion doesn’t support is actually hindering religious liberties.
February 17th, 2012 | 7:34 pm | #7
Maddow is wrong. It may be state law for companies that use insurance companies. But the archdiocese of New York is self-insured, and thus is exempted.
Here’s an idea for Rachel: stop the blind faith when using the administration’s talking points. Do some research yourself.
February 18th, 2012 | 8:54 am | #8
Livingston- you are apparently confused. First, being opposed to Jehovah Witness’ opposition to blood transfusions is not the same as mandating that they PROVIDE blood transfusions, for instance, mandating they donate blood. This is a more comparable situation. Secondly, under our constitutional & federalist regime, states may mandate things the federal gov’t cannot. Thirdly, as mentioned before, many Catholic institutions self insure & hence are exempt from state mandates. Your personal opposition to a religious belief is much diffent from the government deciding whichreligious beliefs & activities qualify as sufficiently religious, IN THE GOV’T'S view to be constitutionally protected. That is the religious liberty argument, not birth control- where in the constitution does it say religious protections are at the mercy of executive fiat?
February 18th, 2012 | 12:03 pm | #9
I’ve not read Mr. Baker’s book, but I hope he’s not attacking a straw man.
It strikes me as odd to think that secularism per se claims neutrality. The explicitly secular public policies in places like France or Turkey try to remove certain religious elements specifically because they are religious. They do not claim neutrality between religious elements and non-religious elements. Neutral public policies need not be secular in this sense. For such policies, secularism could, at least in principle, be treated as just another religion. Or, to use a more encompassing term, secularism would be just another ideological conception of what society should be like, standing right alongside the Mormon conception, etc.
To understand this point, it might help to imagine an attempt to achieve neutral public policies in a town evenly divided between Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists and Muslims, none of which want the post office to operate on their weekly day of worship, but all of which really want the post office to operate more than four days a week. Neutrality so conceived has nothing especially to do with secularism per se.
February 18th, 2012 | 4:18 pm | #10
Ancius,
Our point is that there’s no such thing as a “neutral government policy.” When France and Turkey do thinks like ban the hijab, they aren’t creating a “neutral” state. That is a view of how society ought to be played out. Just because it doesn’t involve religions doesn’t mean that it itself is “neutral.” You say,
Yes, they do. The whole point of the policy is that they want a “neutral ground” where religious beliefs don’t have to conflict. Our argument is that in doing so the policymakers are being just as religious as the religious people.
February 18th, 2012 | 7:25 pm | #11
mm,
I’m sorry but I’m afraid that you’re the one confusing what I’m saying.
“First, being opposed to Jehovah Witness’ opposition to blood transfusions is not the same as mandating that they PROVIDE blood transfusions, for instance, mandating they donate blood. This is a more comparable situation.”
In the health care situation which this article addresses, it has nothing to do with institutions providing blood transfusions, but covering the blood transfusions in their health insurance plans. Catholic institutions, schools for example, were to be required under the health care legislation to cover contraception in their health insurance plans for employees.
This is what man religious institutions were protesting against. Not being forced to provide contraception, but covering contraception. The reason that they claim that they shouldn’t be forced to cover contraception is because it’s against their religious beliefs.
Jehovah Witness institutions are also opposed to blood transfusions. Would we give them similar exemption from having to cover this in their insurance that they provide to employees?
“Secondly, under our constitutional & federalist regime, states may mandate things the federal gov’t cannot”
Your point being???
“Thirdly, as mentioned before, many Catholic institutions self insure & hence are exempt from state mandates.”
True as that may be, there are also many Catholic institutions that aren’t self insured that are not exempt from state mandates. Obviously this legislation would affect them, not the institutions that you mentioned. So I’m afraid that this is irrelevant.
“Your personal opposition to a religious belief is much diffent from the government deciding which religious beliefs & activities qualify as sufficiently religious, IN THE GOV’T’S view to be constitutionally protected”
My personal opposition to a religious belief is irrelevant in regards to the first amendment. My point is if we accept that Catholic institutions should be exempt from covering contraception because they are religiously opposed to it, than it would be just as logical to exempt Jehovah Witness institutions from covering blood transfusions because they are also religiously opposed to it.
And, just the same, Nikolai should be exempt from paying taxes that go towards funding the war because he is religiously opposed to killing.
We need to be careful with what we exempt and why we exempt them. The First amendment has limitations, and I don’t find that requiring institutions to cover contraception is the same as forcing them accept that contraception is immoral.
February 19th, 2012 | 8:14 am | #12
“provide” vs “cover”- in insurance terms just semantics. As for Jehovahs and blood transfusions your analogy is not an accurate depiction of the situation. Blood transfusions are life saving, birth control in this context is not. The Church does not oppose the use of birth control for non-fertility control indications-the life saving ones. The refusal of the Church to PAY for fertility control does not endanger anyone, unlike refusal to cover blood transfusions. So no ones rights are endanger by the protection of the Church’s rights- there is no right to have others to pay for your birth control. Not only can one get birth control without your insurer paying for it, it is not expensive. Again, the real question is the authority of the executive branch to decide which religious institutions & activities are “religious enough” to get a waiver: seminaries-yes, food banks, schools & hospitals-no. The Church has always viewed such activities as intrinsic to her mission since before the fall of the Roman Empire, that is why the Catholic Church founded the university system & most of the original charity hospitals in the western world. The first amendment shields religious believers from others opinion of their religious belief.
February 20th, 2012 | 4:23 am | #13
“The Church does not oppose the use of birth control for non-fertility control indications-the life saving ones.”
If this were true, then why would they roundly reject providing contraceptives at all, which is what they’re doing now? The church isn’t saying, “We’ll provide birth control, so long as it’s not for contraceptive reasons.” They’re saying, “We won’ provide birth control at all.”
February 20th, 2012 | 10:11 am | #14
Nikolai, it appears you’ve misread. Distinguish between distinctively secular policies (like those in Turkey and France, which do not claim neutrality towards religion) and policies which do aim for neutrality towards competing ideological views and commitments, religious or otherwise.
February 20th, 2012 | 11:36 am | #15
Noklai- the Church does not “roundly” reject contraceptives- only when used for reasons of fertility control. Women can take it for other indications & are already covered for such indications by a variety of Catholic institutions. Obviously, in the US the vast majority of oral contraceptive medications are taken for fertility control.
February 20th, 2012 | 12:08 pm | #16
mm,
Nikolai’s point is that although the Catholic church claims to allow birth control for non-fertility reasons, this would contradict their stance on the legislation.
In the face of this bill they are claiming full exemption from having to provide birth control on religious grounds. Not partial exemption in only cases of fertility control. Effectively they’re opposed to all forms of contraception. Even though they think it’s moral in some cases, they’d just rather not cover it and claim it violates their first amendment right (even though, according to you, it’s not against their religion)
February 20th, 2012 | 1:58 pm | #17
incorrect- they are claiming an exemption from the gov’t mandate- ie they can provide it if they want at THEIR discretion- not at the whim/pleasure of the executive. Refusing to grant the gov’t control over their religious beliefs is the issue at stake, not birth control- see for example http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/13/the-audacity-of-power-president-obama-vs-the-catholic-church/
February 20th, 2012 | 4:32 pm | #18
Ancius,
“…policies which do aim for neutrality towards competing ideological views and commitments, religious or otherwise.”
I recognize what you’re talking about. I’m saying that the notion of “aiming for neutrality” does not make sense. My argument is that there is no “neutrality” between beliefs, because everything is a belief. Secularism is a belief just as much of a belief as Christianity is, even though it’s not as well defined.
February 20th, 2012 | 4:44 pm | #19
Nikolai, recall imagined scenario: a town is evenly divided between Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists and Muslims, none of which want the post office to operate on their weekly day of worship, but all of which really want the post office to operate more than four days a week.
You don’t think that there is a sense in which a policy makers can aim at neutrality between these competing religions? Must every policy be biased towards or against one or more of the religions? If not, then a policy that is not so biased is, in a significant sense, neutral, is it not?
Maybe it’d be better to start with an even simpler scenario. A parent has two children who are fighting over a toy. Is there not any way to come up with a rule for them that isn’t biased towards one or another (and so is neutral in the relevant sense)?
February 20th, 2012 | 4:45 pm | #20
mm,
First of all, even if your understanding of the Catholic position on contraceptives is true, that’s not been the nature of the responses to what was Obama’s mandate. Most people weren’t saying, “We’re fine with contraceptives, it just depends on the circumstances.” They were saying, “We’re opposed to contraceptives, and we reject being forced to supply them.” My experience with Catholics has been in the latter of the two responses. Keep in mind it was a controversy when Pope Benedict suggested that if one was involved in prostitution it would be sensible to wear a condom; I think that’s reflective of how stringent the Catholic view on birth control is.
Second, if Catholics had the conditional view on birth control that you cite, then there would be an inconsistency. This means that if a woman was taking birth control for non-contraceptive reasons, she couldn’t have sex with her spouse. Otherwise, she’d be violating the Catholic view of sex, even though that wasn’t her intent with taking birth control.
February 20th, 2012 | 6:10 pm | #21
Nickolai- not inconsistent, taking contraceptive medicines is permissible if it is used for reasons other than birth control (some women take it for hormonal reasons- family history of cancer etc). The infertility is a secondary effect & not the intended effect & therefore permissible- analogous to giving high dose narcotics to terminal patients with painful cancer metastasis. It may hasten their death, but can be given as long as pain relief not death is the intended effect. As a physician such considerations are important.
February 20th, 2012 | 8:55 pm | #22
mm,
This is all news to me. I’m pro-contraceptives, so I’m by no means defending the Catholic position, but I’ve never heard a Catholic give that qualification about using contraceptives before. I’ll have to talk with more Catholics about this issue, because most of the ones I’ve talked to are against birth control in any context.
But I’m not satisfied with the distinction you make involving birth control and using it “primarily” for non-contraceptive reasons. Your analogy to high dose narcotics doesn’t match, because narcotics are designed to remedy pain; death only happens when they are abused. Contraceptives like birth control are designed to be contraceptives; using them for hormonal imbalances, irregular periods, or acne is a secondary usage. It’s not as if birth control secondarily disables reproductive function; that’s its primary goal.
February 20th, 2012 | 9:31 pm | #23
many medications have more than one use- oral contraceptives as well- and do not depend on the package insert- that is of limited usefulness. Drugs designed for use in cancer therapy are used for control of the immune system, etc. Oral contraceptives are used for reasons other than birth control- altho that is far and away the number oner reason. Death from narcotics clearly happens without abuse, but the important matter is that it is not the INTENDED goal of therapy. I know of terminal patients I have given narcotics to that would have liven longer if they did not get the narcotics, but it would have been a terrible & short time- but again the goal was pain relief not euthanasia.
February 22nd, 2012 | 10:24 am | #24
In her famous paper, Contraception and Chastity, published in 1972, the Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe remarks “if a woman took an anovulant pill for a while to check dysmenorrhoea no one would have thought this prohibited intercourse. So, clearly, it was the contraceptive intention that was bad, if contraceptive intercourse was.”
No Catholic theologian has ever disputed this rather obvious proposition.
February 22nd, 2012 | 10:57 am | #25
Ancius & Nicholai Volk
In the political context, certainly, as it is understood in France, secularism or laïcité does not restrict the religious beliefs of individuals; it excludes their intervention in, or impact on, the relations between private individuals and public authorities (the state, territorial authorities, public administration, and public services). It obliges individuals to respect common rules in these relations; they cannot exempt themselves from them for religious reasons – which come down to asserting the primacy of these rules over personal beliefs.
“Law is the expression of the general will.. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes..”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact