On America Magazine today, there is a discussion about a Washington Post article from over the weekend about a permanent fix for the payment of primary care physicians. Of late, their has been a group of libertarian dissenters responding to Michael Sean Winters. More than often, I come to MSW's defense. You can see the debate at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3023&comment=1&success=1 and see the original story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061804700.html. I responded to the knee jerk libertarians, who relied on the American concept of rights rather than the positive rights recognized by the Church - and then related the whole thing to the abortion question. I then offerred a solution to the canundrum of the "Doc Fix" as well as the ultimate fix for other problems in both Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance. Here is what I said:
...the right to health care that MSW was referring to was not one found in the constitution but in Catholic doctrine. Not all considerations of what people are entitled to need to be referenced in American ideals of liberty. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church states that there are positive rights that people are entitled to, regardless of what their governments declare, and among these are health care and a fair living wage (meaning that families need to earn enough to survive and larger families deserve greater consideration). To the extent that political or economic libertarianism is inconsistent with this teaching is the extent that Catholics must ignore their politics and support doctrine. This is also true in abortion - however in all cases, it is best left to the Catholic politicans to say how this is best done. Note that the Social Security system was designed in consultation with a Jesuit priest based on Catholic social encyclicals (Fr. Ryan). I would argue that living wage legislation is the best way to solve both our economic obligations and our obligation to protect the lives of the unborn (just as providing low cost or mandatory rehab is a better way to fight alcoholism than prohibition).
On the subject of paying for care - paying for a doctor fix, the medical needs of the baby boomers, the need to provide affordable medical coverage to people on COBRA and the need to provide for extended unemployment insurance all have a ready made answer, although many will find it distateful. These are all from funds that were designed to be self-supporting originally. Expansions of these programs or merely making them cost effective must ultimately be funded by raising their dedicated revenue streams - however we need not do so in advance of need. We can drop the requirement that the Medicare trust fund maintain some type of long term balance that must be pre-funded. It would be better to allow the tax rate to be raised automatically than to mandate budget cuts instead - or perhaps we can mandate a mix of both unless Congress acts.
In the short term, deficit finance is necessary - however in the long term, subsidizing COBRA, funding doctor fees adequately, providing for longer term unemployment and for Medicare Part D is best done with payroll tax hikes. Indeed, in the area of unemployment - a higher tax rate may have employers think again before assuming that laying people off is in their best interests. The whole point of the tax was to add a little bit of pain to the decision to reduce payrolls to save money. Perhaps this is just the time to make that pain increase.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Public Accommodation and Liberty
As I was relaxing at the pool at my condo this past weekend (which has lifeguards who are guest workers and clientele which reflects our multi-ethnic mix of owners and renters), I had a final thought on the whole Rand Paul debacle over the public accommodations provisions in the Civil Rights Act.
The standard libertarian critique over these provisions, which Paul expressed to Rachel Maddow, is that private property holders should be able to refuse service to whomever they please, even if it is based on racism. My usual response is that if a business is open to the public, especially if it is incorporated, it cannot do that. Indeed, private clubs are still free to discriminate - as much as we dislike that. Someone who does business from their private home can certainly not take all clients, but if the public space is used, the freedom to deny service does not exist. Hanging a sign that says "open" rather than "by appointment only" pretty much obligates you to take all comers.Let me now add another piece to the argument - one that shuts down any libertarian objection to public accommodation.
The essential part of the freedom to exclude is what happens when someone comes in and demands service, even though a "White's Only" sign hangs in the door. The police are called, or private security is summoned, and violence is used to remove the person. This fact alone should settle the question for any true libertarian, since the violence involved was most likely governmental violence. Indeed, without direct violence, or a right of private violence, restricting service based on race is impossible, especially when the excluded parties come in anyway. If big L libertarians are really serious about their pledge to do no violence, then public accommodation laws are actually the most libertarian option - much more than a faux respect for private party which really masks a culture of violent racism.
Let's now remove the "right to refuse service" meme from the liberty conversation forever.
The standard libertarian critique over these provisions, which Paul expressed to Rachel Maddow, is that private property holders should be able to refuse service to whomever they please, even if it is based on racism. My usual response is that if a business is open to the public, especially if it is incorporated, it cannot do that. Indeed, private clubs are still free to discriminate - as much as we dislike that. Someone who does business from their private home can certainly not take all clients, but if the public space is used, the freedom to deny service does not exist. Hanging a sign that says "open" rather than "by appointment only" pretty much obligates you to take all comers.Let me now add another piece to the argument - one that shuts down any libertarian objection to public accommodation.
The essential part of the freedom to exclude is what happens when someone comes in and demands service, even though a "White's Only" sign hangs in the door. The police are called, or private security is summoned, and violence is used to remove the person. This fact alone should settle the question for any true libertarian, since the violence involved was most likely governmental violence. Indeed, without direct violence, or a right of private violence, restricting service based on race is impossible, especially when the excluded parties come in anyway. If big L libertarians are really serious about their pledge to do no violence, then public accommodation laws are actually the most libertarian option - much more than a faux respect for private party which really masks a culture of violent racism.
Let's now remove the "right to refuse service" meme from the liberty conversation forever.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
DADT repeal and Catholic reaction
In yesterday's America Magazine blog, Michael Sean Winters opined on the repeal deal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which was negotiated in Washington over the past few days with Secretary Gates' grudging acceptance. Quite a debate ensued, which I of course participated in. You can read the ongoing debate here http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2920
The "Unit Cohesion" argument eventual boils down to the ability of some members to have their moral scorn over another's sexuality treated with heightened respect in the areas of freedom of association and religion. Moral scorn is no more deserving of such protection under these rights than shouting fire in a theater should be protected under freedom of speech. The age when the United States should police the morality of its military members or civilian employees is over - as well it should be in a nation founded on the protection of individual rights. I talk about DADT in my book, Musings from the Christian Left in my essay on Iraq here http://xianlp.blogspot.com/2009/10/lessons-from-war-in-iraq-geocities.html and about gay rights here http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2009/10/gay-rights-geocities-rescue.html
Some will say we were founded as a Christian nation (which I spoke about a few days ago here http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/america-as-christian-nation.html. Actually, the founders of the government were deists and the original settlers were a particular kind of Christian - the anti-Catholic kind. For this reason, I am bemused whenever a Catholic uses the Christian Nation meme, since until 50 years ago it was used against Al Smith and was almost used against John F. Kennedy.
There is something unseemly about any group of people who were once a persectured minority who is no longer persecuted and instead persecutes others. The classical church did it in the 4th Century and now the American Church is doing it. Sad. It reminds me of the parable of the ungrateful servant.
The "Unit Cohesion" argument eventual boils down to the ability of some members to have their moral scorn over another's sexuality treated with heightened respect in the areas of freedom of association and religion. Moral scorn is no more deserving of such protection under these rights than shouting fire in a theater should be protected under freedom of speech. The age when the United States should police the morality of its military members or civilian employees is over - as well it should be in a nation founded on the protection of individual rights. I talk about DADT in my book, Musings from the Christian Left in my essay on Iraq here http://xianlp.blogspot.com/2009/10/lessons-from-war-in-iraq-geocities.html and about gay rights here http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2009/10/gay-rights-geocities-rescue.html
Some will say we were founded as a Christian nation (which I spoke about a few days ago here http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/america-as-christian-nation.html. Actually, the founders of the government were deists and the original settlers were a particular kind of Christian - the anti-Catholic kind. For this reason, I am bemused whenever a Catholic uses the Christian Nation meme, since until 50 years ago it was used against Al Smith and was almost used against John F. Kennedy.
There is something unseemly about any group of people who were once a persectured minority who is no longer persecuted and instead persecutes others. The classical church did it in the 4th Century and now the American Church is doing it. Sad. It reminds me of the parable of the ungrateful servant.
The Bishops letter to Congress on ENDA
America Magazine reports that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to Congress on May 19, on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) , focusing on same-sex marriage. the letter is quite a read and quite a disappointment. One of its authors was Washington Archbishop Wuerl. You can read the letter here http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2923#comments
The Church's teaching on homosexuality need not impact how it behaves as an employer. It must be respectful toward its employees rights - it need not celebrate their unions or affirm their sexual practices.There should be no more an exception here than for race. While Catholics may not seek a religious exemption for race, many evangelical churches are divided upon racial lines and such division should not be affirmed by religious exemptions to ENDA. The Church should not more discriminate against gay marriages, which actually affirm marriage as a concept, the same way it should not discriminate on race.
The function of marriage in civil society (and indeed in religion as well) is to make official the separation of a person from their family of origin and to recognize their freely chosen union with a spouse. As such, it dissolves rights for some and creates rights for others. There is no rational basis for denying such ability to rearrange one's family affairs for gay family members when it is automatic for straight family members. It has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the right of association at the most intimate level. It is also why objections to redefining marriage to include a brother or mother carry no weight, as such relations are already existent in the law. Marriage severs the primacy of these relations and gives them to the spouse.
The Federal case on Proposition 8 actually shows that ENDA will not be necessary, since Prop 8 will be overturned without ENDA (the Bishops think ENDA will be part of the legal argument for overturning it). Prop. 8 will be overturned because it was motivated by animus for a class worthy of protection. It is interesting that the Bishops mention Roe. The letter shows that whoever drafted it does not understand Roe and why it was decided - or that the primacy of individual rights over state majorities actually protects the Church in places where Catholics are rare - Alabama and Mississippi come to mind (places where pluralities believe the Pope is the Antichrist).
As for the associational rights of others, there is no right to discriminate from moral scorn, nor should there be, within the freedoms of either religion or association. My feeling is that the people in the pews are way out in front of the Bishops on this. If they had consulted us, we would have said to recognize gay marriages and those of us with gay family members would demand that they also be celebrated sacramentally. This demand is what truly scares the Bishops.
The Church's teaching on homosexuality need not impact how it behaves as an employer. It must be respectful toward its employees rights - it need not celebrate their unions or affirm their sexual practices.There should be no more an exception here than for race. While Catholics may not seek a religious exemption for race, many evangelical churches are divided upon racial lines and such division should not be affirmed by religious exemptions to ENDA. The Church should not more discriminate against gay marriages, which actually affirm marriage as a concept, the same way it should not discriminate on race.
The function of marriage in civil society (and indeed in religion as well) is to make official the separation of a person from their family of origin and to recognize their freely chosen union with a spouse. As such, it dissolves rights for some and creates rights for others. There is no rational basis for denying such ability to rearrange one's family affairs for gay family members when it is automatic for straight family members. It has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the right of association at the most intimate level. It is also why objections to redefining marriage to include a brother or mother carry no weight, as such relations are already existent in the law. Marriage severs the primacy of these relations and gives them to the spouse.
The Federal case on Proposition 8 actually shows that ENDA will not be necessary, since Prop 8 will be overturned without ENDA (the Bishops think ENDA will be part of the legal argument for overturning it). Prop. 8 will be overturned because it was motivated by animus for a class worthy of protection. It is interesting that the Bishops mention Roe. The letter shows that whoever drafted it does not understand Roe and why it was decided - or that the primacy of individual rights over state majorities actually protects the Church in places where Catholics are rare - Alabama and Mississippi come to mind (places where pluralities believe the Pope is the Antichrist).
As for the associational rights of others, there is no right to discriminate from moral scorn, nor should there be, within the freedoms of either religion or association. My feeling is that the people in the pews are way out in front of the Bishops on this. If they had consulted us, we would have said to recognize gay marriages and those of us with gay family members would demand that they also be celebrated sacramentally. This demand is what truly scares the Bishops.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Kagan Question (is she or isn't she?)
The President has nominated a new Supreme Court Justice. This summer, I am sure this town will be full of activists on both sides. In religious circles, questions abound about about two areas on which she will spend the least amount of time: abortion and gay marriage. Ms. Kagan's nomination is complicated by the fact that she recommended to President Clinton that he sign the Partial Birth Abortion Bill (which Bush signed and the Court upheld) and by suspicions that she may be a lesbian due to her marital status. Indeed, my better read competitor, America Magazine, contains a story today in its online issue, which you can read at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2901. I also received an email today from one of Liberty U.'s lawyers, Matt Barber, but I won't discuss it since it was, frankly, reasoned badly (as one would expect from Barber).
As I wrote on the comment page, elections matter. Indeed, if the GOP would stop demagoging abortion for their electoral agenda and really address how to get beyond Roe in reducing abortion (by using Congressional action instead of attempting to overturn most equal protection doctrine by overturning Roe), they might have gotten more Catholic votesin the last election and be nominating someone else - although considering who they put on the ticket (an abortion demagogue who was not even familiar with the arguments on her own side) - that was unlikely to happen anyway. In other words, in a world of sane anti-abortion policy, Sarah Palin would not be where she was (or is).I don't expect abortion to come up again judicially for the foreseeable future - accept around the edges. Indeed, partial birth is already decided, although Congress could change the law and there would be no court case for Kagan to hear, since the law was upheld because of Congressional power.
There are seven votes against overturning Roe - three of whom no counting Stevens - who were GOP appointees. When O'Connor retired, she was replaced origionally with Roberts - which replaced a pro-Roe centrists with one of the same. Roberts than replaced Rehnquist, which was an anti-Roe loss, since the former CJ voted with Scalia and Thomas. Souter was replaced by Sotomayor - a moderate for a moderate and now Stevens is being replaced by Kagan. This is a loss for the pro-choice side, since Stevens was in that camp while Kagan, who told Clinton to sign the Partial Birth Abortion Act, is probably moderate on the issue. We are left with two pro-choicers (Breyer and Ginsburg), two pro-lifers (Thomas and Scalia) and five in the middle (Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Kagan). Maybe I am wrong on elections mattering. They do matter on who gets to chose - however the choser appears not to be the most pro-abortion President in history.I do expect economic issues to come up more. I hope that Kagan votes like a liberal - although given her mainstream career path, it is a hope, not an expectation.
Her sexuality matters not, although even if she were a lesbian, I would hope she sides with Kennedy on the issue of gay marriage - against a body of state passed constitutional amendments which are motivated by malice towards a minority group and which, therefore, cannot be constitutional. It would be no more inappropriate to put Kagan on to agree with such basic justice as it was to put a prior Solictor General on the Court (Marshall) in order to vote correctly on civil rights matters. Even if the left puts up a hue and cry about her moderation on abortion, I doubt Obama will dump his long time friend (unlike Bush, who dumped Meyers and did not even come close to appointing Gonzales). Unless there is a total GOP fillibuster against her (and I doubt Bennett would follow it), she is in.
As I wrote on the comment page, elections matter. Indeed, if the GOP would stop demagoging abortion for their electoral agenda and really address how to get beyond Roe in reducing abortion (by using Congressional action instead of attempting to overturn most equal protection doctrine by overturning Roe), they might have gotten more Catholic votesin the last election and be nominating someone else - although considering who they put on the ticket (an abortion demagogue who was not even familiar with the arguments on her own side) - that was unlikely to happen anyway. In other words, in a world of sane anti-abortion policy, Sarah Palin would not be where she was (or is).I don't expect abortion to come up again judicially for the foreseeable future - accept around the edges. Indeed, partial birth is already decided, although Congress could change the law and there would be no court case for Kagan to hear, since the law was upheld because of Congressional power.
There are seven votes against overturning Roe - three of whom no counting Stevens - who were GOP appointees. When O'Connor retired, she was replaced origionally with Roberts - which replaced a pro-Roe centrists with one of the same. Roberts than replaced Rehnquist, which was an anti-Roe loss, since the former CJ voted with Scalia and Thomas. Souter was replaced by Sotomayor - a moderate for a moderate and now Stevens is being replaced by Kagan. This is a loss for the pro-choice side, since Stevens was in that camp while Kagan, who told Clinton to sign the Partial Birth Abortion Act, is probably moderate on the issue. We are left with two pro-choicers (Breyer and Ginsburg), two pro-lifers (Thomas and Scalia) and five in the middle (Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Kagan). Maybe I am wrong on elections mattering. They do matter on who gets to chose - however the choser appears not to be the most pro-abortion President in history.I do expect economic issues to come up more. I hope that Kagan votes like a liberal - although given her mainstream career path, it is a hope, not an expectation.
Her sexuality matters not, although even if she were a lesbian, I would hope she sides with Kennedy on the issue of gay marriage - against a body of state passed constitutional amendments which are motivated by malice towards a minority group and which, therefore, cannot be constitutional. It would be no more inappropriate to put Kagan on to agree with such basic justice as it was to put a prior Solictor General on the Court (Marshall) in order to vote correctly on civil rights matters. Even if the left puts up a hue and cry about her moderation on abortion, I doubt Obama will dump his long time friend (unlike Bush, who dumped Meyers and did not even come close to appointing Gonzales). Unless there is a total GOP fillibuster against her (and I doubt Bennett would follow it), she is in.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Debating prayer and salvation in the blogosphere
In Sunday's Washington Post, Kathleen Parker commented on Franklin Graham's prayers in the Pentagon parking lot during what would have been his chance to lead a military prayer service - an offer that was withdrawn by the Pentagon. You can read the commentary at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050704065.html. In his daily blog, Michael Sean Winters reviews her comments in a way that indicates he does not get what she was talking about. You can read his comments at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2864.
I think Winters missed her point about the commonality of spiritual experience, which she tried to show with neuroscience, as cited in Barbara Bradley Haggerty's book Fingerprints of God. She contrasted Haggerty's views with Graham's worldview and apparently MSW's on Christian exceptionalism. Her conclusion was that God does not play favorites in making connections - with her proof being that the neurostate associated with prayer is not a result of the act of praying but the result of God responding and establishing some kind of connection. In other words, she is positing the universality (and measurability) of grace.
I agree that God does not play favorites arbitrarily - and certainly not on racial lines. I do believe He does have favorite ontologies, however we are judged based on how we do them as individuals, not groups. Judging groups would not be favored by God under such a theory. Whether one is for or against Jesus is not a matter of self-identification or group identity, but how one conforms their actions to the law of Love. Anyone can do that and group membership does not assure anyone that they are doing it well. What is most exceptional about Jesus were his divinity and universality. Jesus said that if you were doing his work, you were for him - as many of his parables reveal. The judge of the sheep and the goats did not go in for labels, he cared about results - by their fruits ye shall know them.
In recent days, many of the commenters on Winter's daily blog have wondered over the issue of lurkers being led astray (and the state of orthodoxy of the Jesuits and why they employ Winters). To an extent, the left and the right are arguing past each other on many issues. I think conservatives have a fantasy that what they have been taught is immutable and that violating that immutability will lead others astray and into damnation. At the core of this seems to be a belief that the moral law exists for divine happiness rather than human happiness - which is heretical because a God that can be made unhappy is not a god at all (God being happiness itself).
This reminds me of a discussion in ethics class in minor seminary about whether we ought to follow the moral law because doing so makes us completely happy or because the perfection of God demands it. I got a B because I did not believe in a duty to God. We are not necessary for God, God is necessary for us. Once we believe we are necessary for God, we replicate the pride of Lucifer. The fruit of that pride is uncharitability to others, including and especially in the political sphere, where the DC area is ground zero and some of the argument is fiercest. Both sides share some of the blame for this tone, however the greater tragedy is an uncharitable morality on the right that departs from the Law of Love while seeking the letter of the law. This is especially the case in the Church's rather recent teaching that homosexuality is disordered, which has led some Catholic gay teens to suicide. If driving someone to suicide is not leading them astray, I cannot image what is.
I think Winters missed her point about the commonality of spiritual experience, which she tried to show with neuroscience, as cited in Barbara Bradley Haggerty's book Fingerprints of God. She contrasted Haggerty's views with Graham's worldview and apparently MSW's on Christian exceptionalism. Her conclusion was that God does not play favorites in making connections - with her proof being that the neurostate associated with prayer is not a result of the act of praying but the result of God responding and establishing some kind of connection. In other words, she is positing the universality (and measurability) of grace.
I agree that God does not play favorites arbitrarily - and certainly not on racial lines. I do believe He does have favorite ontologies, however we are judged based on how we do them as individuals, not groups. Judging groups would not be favored by God under such a theory. Whether one is for or against Jesus is not a matter of self-identification or group identity, but how one conforms their actions to the law of Love. Anyone can do that and group membership does not assure anyone that they are doing it well. What is most exceptional about Jesus were his divinity and universality. Jesus said that if you were doing his work, you were for him - as many of his parables reveal. The judge of the sheep and the goats did not go in for labels, he cared about results - by their fruits ye shall know them.
In recent days, many of the commenters on Winter's daily blog have wondered over the issue of lurkers being led astray (and the state of orthodoxy of the Jesuits and why they employ Winters). To an extent, the left and the right are arguing past each other on many issues. I think conservatives have a fantasy that what they have been taught is immutable and that violating that immutability will lead others astray and into damnation. At the core of this seems to be a belief that the moral law exists for divine happiness rather than human happiness - which is heretical because a God that can be made unhappy is not a god at all (God being happiness itself).
This reminds me of a discussion in ethics class in minor seminary about whether we ought to follow the moral law because doing so makes us completely happy or because the perfection of God demands it. I got a B because I did not believe in a duty to God. We are not necessary for God, God is necessary for us. Once we believe we are necessary for God, we replicate the pride of Lucifer. The fruit of that pride is uncharitability to others, including and especially in the political sphere, where the DC area is ground zero and some of the argument is fiercest. Both sides share some of the blame for this tone, however the greater tragedy is an uncharitable morality on the right that departs from the Law of Love while seeking the letter of the law. This is especially the case in the Church's rather recent teaching that homosexuality is disordered, which has led some Catholic gay teens to suicide. If driving someone to suicide is not leading them astray, I cannot image what is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)