tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post512351935146519176..comments2023-10-30T08:00:43.585-05:00Comments on Shameless Popery: Disingenuous Arguments for the HHS MandateJoe Heschmeyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-79190148443951173592012-02-17T10:50:55.599-06:002012-02-17T10:50:55.599-06:00Not if done rightly. In the philosophy of religion...Not if done rightly. In the philosophy of religion there is a distinction between "soft" and "hard" apologetics. "Hard" apologetics is where you try to show that the only defensible position is the one you are promoting. "Soft" apologetics tries to show only that your position is defensible. Soft apologetics is not out to proselytize in the same way that hard apologetics is. <br /><br />Now there is a time and a place for both sorts of apologetics. But I'm saying that we need aggressive "soft" apologetics on birth control. This is because people think that the Catholic position is irrational and, so long as that is the case, the government is going to continue to trample on freedom of conscience w/r/t contraception. <br /><br />Don't you all agree?Jon Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17983127089244244358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-38918744729689094792012-02-16T22:35:44.827-06:002012-02-16T22:35:44.827-06:00Actually, I'm the one who should be embarrasse...Actually, I'm the one who should be embarrassed -- I included the wrong link. Try <b><a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/02/does-hhs-mandate-go-further-than-states.html" rel="nofollow">this one instead</a></b>.<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-8837216480573944772012-02-16T22:18:58.924-06:002012-02-16T22:18:58.924-06:00You do not think it would be a distraction, Jon? I...You do not think it would be a distraction, Jon? It would most definitely give our opponents an opportunity to focus on the moral argument and sideline the legal argument. You disagree?<br /><br />Joe, hmm. This is embarrassing.I do not seem to be able to locate where you address the "28 states argument."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-25011231430449347872012-02-16T14:20:38.927-06:002012-02-16T14:20:38.927-06:00Prof. Tollefson provides a defense: http://www.nat...Prof. Tollefson provides a defense: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291220/contraception-and-catholicism-christopher-tollefsenLatenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028986769458356612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-53040090821536701952012-02-16T09:18:05.057-06:002012-02-16T09:18:05.057-06:00Brian,
I addressed the 28 states argument here. ...<b>Brian</b>,<br /><br />I addressed the <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/02/disingenuous-arguments-for-hhs-mandate.html" rel="nofollow">28 states argument here</a>. And I imagine that the Becket Fund would be a good place to go to find a sophisticated legal analysis, but I haven't seen them put one out yet.<br /><br />As for Jehovah's Witnesses, I'd say two things: (1) it's distinguishable, since we're talking about covering life-saving blood transfusions. The argument that this is something that should be a mandatory part of insurance coverage is obvious, in a way that it's not for contraception. <br /><br />But (2) I think there's a good argument to be made that if you (a) choose to work for a JW employer, and (b) choose to contract insurance through them, you can't really complain if the insurance provided is consistent with JW values. If you want a blood transfusion, you're free to pay for it, or to get separate insurance coverage.<br /><br />On a related note, Georgetown University Hospital offers a <a href="http://www.georgetownuniversityhospital.org/body.cfm?id=15&UserAction=PressDetails&action=detail&ref=237" rel="nofollow">bloodless medicine and surgery program</a> for JWs. I genuinely appreciate the way that they went out of their way to fill this niche, and cater to the religious beliefs of their clientele. If only we could get them to respect Catholic beliefs as much...<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-9276821455600044872012-02-16T08:58:25.135-06:002012-02-16T08:58:25.135-06:00A distraction now and unnecessary before! Ah Catho...A distraction now and unnecessary before! Ah Catholics can always talk themselves out of talking about contraception. Can you blame the government for thinking the position is silly and arbitrary appeal to tradition? Catholics themselves don't mount a rational defense of it!Jon Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17983127089244244358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-64339513116478353732012-02-16T00:10:20.228-06:002012-02-16T00:10:20.228-06:00I think it would be a distraction to rationally de...I think it would be a distraction to rationally defend the moral prohibition against artificial contraception. It would send mixed messages to a public already being manipulated by the left. We do not want to enable the narrative that the Church is somehow imposing a moral view on unwilling Americans. We need to focus on the ethical and legal questions of the mandate itself.<br /><br />There are some other arguments, though, that perhaps you could address, Joe. What about the comparison to Jevoha's Witnesses and their prohibition on blood transfusion? The comparison is meant to show that religious liberty could not be an absolute. So what is a rational, non-ad hoc, principled, and legally sound response?<br /><br />What about the idea of 28 states (allegedly) already having similar mandates?<br /><br />And finally, most importantly, where can we go to see a sophisticated analysis of this mandate with sophisticated legal arguments against it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-65560473457559838042012-02-15T18:44:22.565-06:002012-02-15T18:44:22.565-06:00insightful take on the opposition. I just linked b...insightful take on the opposition. I just linked back to your post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-91938601890655949012012-02-15T17:39:49.732-06:002012-02-15T17:39:49.732-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10893212093736380961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-39283382638774598022012-02-15T17:39:35.447-06:002012-02-15T17:39:35.447-06:00This whole thing is a perfect teaching moment for ...This whole thing is a perfect teaching moment for the Bishops that's quickly slipping through their fingers. They can point to Humanae Vitae, how it demonstrates the evil of contraception, also how it predicted all this would come to pass (written only 50 years ago...), and give the world a big fat "We told you so!"<br /><br />The Catholic commentator Mark Shea had a good blurb recently: "If what goes on in someone else's bedroom is none of my business, then don't make me pay for their supplies or the consequences. And conversely, if I'm going to be forced to pay for the supplies and the consequences, don't say it's none of my business."<br /><br />Here's a pair of (admittedly outlandish to make a point) hypothetical situations to ponder:<br /><br />President's come and go, and what one creates, a successor can expand upon.<br /><br />An even more liberal democrat could come into office in 2020 (only a mere 8 years from now) and make a strong push for it be totally illegal to not offer offer abortions in all insurance policies, no exceptions. Forcing everyone to pay for abortions.<br /><br />On the flip-side, someone else could come into office, and make a push to remove condoms from store shelves, and require a prescription to buy them, and only then for couples married for no less than five years and with no less than three children.<br /><br />They can point to their predecessor President Obama, and his mandate stating that the greater good must take priority, and that any one who objects needs to get in line and get with the times.<br /><br />I admit that those two are both very extreme examples, and most likely won't happen, but the point still stands that President Obama has set a dangerous precedent with this HHS mandate. A mandate that will almost certainly come back and bite us all in the behinds sooner or later if it's not fought vigorously and defeated today.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10893212093736380961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-55714949085790417472012-02-15T17:13:06.021-06:002012-02-15T17:13:06.021-06:00Yea, I see your point. But don't you get the f...Yea, I see your point. But don't you get the feeling that the Administration is banking on the fact that even obedient Catholics (much less everyone else) just doesn't quite get the moral argument against contraception? If this had to do with some non sexual rule, the Administration would have never thought twice about doing it. But I think people say outwardly that they think this is ridiculous but think inwardly "well it is only their asinine contraception rule, so it isn't the end of the world." Catholics may not need to proselytize on the issue, but they at least need to say "here's why it matters." For as Ross Douthat puts it, even obedient Catholics often think: "The natural law permits me to rigorously chart my temperature and/or measure my cervical mucus every day in an effort to avoid conception, but it doesn’t permit me to use a condom? Really?"<br /><br />Maybe there isn't even a convincing argument. But if there is, I think it needs to be a part of this.Jon Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17983127089244244358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-6572703763521016242012-02-15T15:57:20.559-06:002012-02-15T15:57:20.559-06:00Jon,
I agree completely. This certainly creates a...<b>Jon</b>,<br /><br />I agree completely. This certainly creates an opportunity. I'd put it like this:<br /><br />(a) If you're a conservative who believes in small government, that's a good reason to oppose Obamacare, and the government's attempt to turn private insurance companies into public utilities; and it's a good reason to oppose this HHS Mandate specifically, which is an incredible governmental overreach.<br /><br />(b) If you're a Catholic, you should obviously be against the HHS Mandate, as it's a direct attack on the religious beliefs who cherish.<br /><br />(c) If you're against birth control [and ideally, everyone in (b) is also here], then the idea of an HHS Mandate forcing you to pay for something that you think harms women, harms family, and harms society should be repugnant. And of course, the attempt to make religious groups pay for this idiocy should be regarded with disdain.<br /><br /><br />My point in today's post is that even people who don't fall in (a), (b), or (c) are (and should be) against the HHS Mandate, because it's an assault upon the First Amendment.<br /><br />Rick Warren, for example, isn't Catholic, isn't against birth control, and gave the Obama inaugural invocation, and he came out against the HHS Mandate. Our own <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/02/contesting-hhs-mandate-panel-discussion.html?showComment=1328863145668#c2543372544440425649" rel="nofollow">Paul Rimmer</a> similarly can't be neatly written off as a partisan or sectarian hack.<br /><br />So should we, as Catholics, use this as an opportunity to speak out against birth control? Absolutely. But if we bank our entire opposition to the HHS Mandate on convincing post-Christian America that birth control is bad and self control is good, I think that's a non-starter.<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-13695191265198452852012-02-15T15:35:28.657-06:002012-02-15T15:35:28.657-06:00I know its not a birth control issue, but isn'...I know its not a birth control issue, but isn't an opportunity to present the case against BC. I mean, even saying you oppose BC (not that you support legislation against it) is a political third rail:<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-birth-control-harms-women/2012/02/15/gIQASRukFR_blog.html<br /><br />Don't Catholics have a responsibility to make the moral case against it and thereby bring the gospel to an age so morally muddled that it uses support for birth control as a litmus test for public office?Jon Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17983127089244244358noreply@blogger.com