Update from the
Heartland
No.688
16.2.15 – 22.2.15
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The intolerance of Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas [687] . . . another opinion:
“In Kansas, the governor is rolling back tolerance”
by Editorial Board
Washington Post
Published: February 15 at 6:30 PM
I think the Washington Post Editorial Board has gone
exceptionally easy on Sam. His regression
politics are contemptible and disgusting.
To me, this is what happens when so few residents vote; we get a
governor elected and motivated by a willful minority. This should be a lesson for everyone. Your vote counts . . . but only if you
cast your ballot.
I would like to
illuminate a particular international commentator – Doctor Qanta A. A. Ahmed. She is a British-born physician of Pakistani
heritage, who is also a proud and articulate Muslim. I have listened to her perhaps a half dozen times on CNN and
FoxNews. She has become the voice
of reason within the Islamic faith.
We can only hope more Muslims listen and heed her wisdom, and join her
in condemnation of the radical fundamentalists who are trying to hijack the
Islamic religion for their megalomaniacal purposes. Look for her commentary; you will be suitably impressed. With all this dribble-drabble about the
President’s refusal to associate the current war effort with radical,
fundamentalist, Islamic violence flies in the face of Qanta Ahmed’s
message. Ahmed is more direct. Yet, I appreciate the President’s
attempt to reach the majority of Muslims to break that recruiting linkage used
by Islamo-fascist groups like al-Qa’ida and ISIL. The President is correct; we are NOT at war with Islam. I would go farther to say most of us
respect Islam. If there is tension
between Western culture and Islam, the conflict occurs in the fundamental
principle of separation of church/mosque/temple and State.
News from the economic front:
-- Austrian Finance Minister Hans Jörg Schelling announced the
eurozone approval of a requested, four-month extension on Greece's bailout,
provided Athens submits by Monday details on the reform and budgetary measures
it plans to take. The 23rd-hour
agreement would extend Greece’s €172B rescue plan by four-months, avoiding
bankruptcy for Athens and pushing the next potential stand-off to June, when a
€3.5B debt payment comes due.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.687:
“Thanks Cap, just
read you right through. Between tasks here so a little time to spare.
‘Professional shopper’ love it, we all have one dear boy!
“Your comments re Costa Concordia.
“I have used that
incident several times in my training sessions for legion managers over here in
the U/K.
“Captain Shettino
was indeed responsible for gross negligence in every single aspect of his
duties. And then to abandon ship while passengers were still on board amounted
to what is in my personal view one of utmost cowardice in the face of the
enemy. He richly deserves the considerable sentence awarded. However, and Cap I
apologise if I’ve raised this before. Those in management above him, those that
appointed him, those that periodically reassess his knowledge and capabilities
must accept some responsibility something they seem to have rather cleverly avoided.
This one point alone is valid throughout the entire management structure in
whatever occupation. This then is the point I use to hammer home the
responsibilities of those in management. Be certain that the person in post is
not only capable but has the right mental and physiological aptitudes to
undertake such serious responsibilities.
“Sorry to go on my
friend.”
My reply:
Very
good point regarding management’s responsibility. We tend to see more management accountability in the
military than in business.
You
are welcome and invited to go on anytime, about anything, you wish, my friend.
Another contribution:
“In regard to the topic of marriage, I would like to throw another
perspective into the debate, as you may expect from the tradition of my faith,
but I don’t believe I have come to this from blindly following church teaching,
but from years of trying to come to terms with a rapidly changing public
attitude regarding the rights of those persons who are not exclusively
heterosexual and the issues surrounding this evolving public opinion.
“We as a nation and modern society in general have come far (and
fairly rapidly in historical terms) in our treatment and protection of racial
and other groups who have been (and unfortunately continue to be in many cases)
discriminated against.
“I believe we are however on much more shaky ground as we navigate
the controversial territory of legislating issues surrounding sexual
orientation. I will be the first to agree that we have no place legislating
what people do in their bedrooms -- as you said rightly between of-age and
fully consenting adults. There is though, in my opinion, a huge difference
between (1) being laissez-faire with regard to sexual activity between
consenting adults and (2) legislating that all sexual
orientation is equivalent.
“I am very worried about the unintended consequences of
legislation regulating the rights of people to certain sexual behaviors and
changing the definition of marriage. (We have had previous exchanges with
regard to the ACA mandate to provide contraceptive services where we have, in
the final analysis I suppose, agreed to disagree, but where I actually don’t
think you chose to see the very real and dangerous threat to religious liberty
that occurs as a consequence of a government that can make a determination that
long held religious values could be considered discriminatory.)
“Let me list some unintended consequences that I am concerned
about:
“(1) Very real potential for charges of discrimination. If we say
that marriage between same gender couples is a right, then at some point in the
future, will the church be classified as a discriminatory organization (and
subject to civil lawsuits) because it does not allow same gender couples to be
married in the church?
“(2) Rights of the children to be raised by a mother and father.
(Note: We are as a society too painfully aware of the many problems of children
growing up in dysfunctional/abusive families -- this discussion could branch
into innumerable tangents if we open it to the root causes of why such
abusive/dysfunctional families exist, and while it could be a useful
discussion, I don’t want to obscure this particular issue with a discussion of
that very large and complex issue.) What I am concerned about here is
legislating the right of same gender couples to raise children (who are not
already the biological child of one of the partners). A child should ideally be
raised by a mother and father role model -- either their biological parents or
adoptive parents. To enshrine in law the right of same gender couples to adopt
children denies, a priori, children this right. I have recently read
several articles by children raised by same gender couples, who know that both ‘parents’
loved them but as adults, being able to look at their childhood more
dispassionately, recognize that they have serious psychological problems with
forming healthy male-female relationships. (Also please note that I am not
discussing single parenting (loss of a spouse, for a very wide variety of
reasons, from being killed in the line of duty from military or law
enforcement, to divorce, to dying of disease, etc., has its own difficult
challenges -- I am only considering the situation of a child being raised by two
same-sex ‘parents’). There have already been religious placement agencies that
have had to shut down because they refused to place children with same-sex
parents and were therefore accused of discrimination.
“(3) Redefinition of marriage. If marriage is NOT between one man
and one woman (who then have the possibility of carrying out the societal
good of raising children to be well grounded, good and responsible citizens),
what then would be the logical, legal reason that in the future three (or even
more) people who profess their love and affection for one another, for example,
couldn’t be allowed to be ‘married’?
“(4) Long term societal effects of defining various sexual
orientations as equivalent. I, of course, recognize the un-PC nature of this
statement, but I believe there should be a distinction made between ‘marriage’
(between one man and one woman) which includes the rights and responsibilities
of raising a family and ‘civil/economic unions’ which would confer the
equivalent legal, inheritance and medical consultative/visitation rights, etc.
between any two consenting adults.
“This has become much longer than I initially intended and I know
too and accept that several of my stated opinions are anathema to some folks.
However, I believe very strongly that the great danger to some of our religious
institutions (through charges of discrimination and civil lawsuits) and the
long-term damage to our society by institutionalizing the legal equivalence
of non-heterosexual marriage relationships has yet to be comprehended by our
great nation.”
“As you said, I call it like I see it!!”
My response:
Rather
than respond point-by-point, I would like to take a more circumspect approach
to this discussion. Please allow
me some latitude.
By
my understanding of history, recorded human history can be established back to
circa 4,000 BC . . . or roughly 6,000 years. History prior to that milestone relies on science and
conjecture. The oldest known
religious temple dates back to 8,600 BC, and signs of crop cultivation and the
beginnings of civilization date back to 9,600 BC. Based on the available facts, archaeologists and
anthropologists have hypothesized the sequence of civilization was most likely:
Settlement
==> Religion ==> Temples ==> Farming ==> Cities. So much of this hypothesis hangs upon
our definitions of what constitutes those stages of civilizing mankind. Settlements most likely began for
mutual protection of tribes, or collections of human beings of similar
attributes. Religion sought to
understand and explain natural events, e.g., weather, celestial phenomena, war,
disease, death, et cetera. As
religion evolved, I believe there is little debate that religion provided rules
for life, for relationships, for conduct and behavior. In short, religion was the civilizing
force that enabled mankind to mature.
At the end of the day, there is no doubt in my little pea brain that
religion has been and remains a vital influence on human evolution.
Please
note, I have purposefully avoided any specific reference to a contemporary or
extinct religion. I do not want
this discussion to devolve into a debate regarding one religious ideology or
another. For the current
discussion, general summary should be sufficient to further this debate.
At
this juncture, I must note that religion has been an unquestionable civilizing
influence and yet it has also been one of the most destructive forces in human
evolution. We could ascribe many
reasons for this claim, but let it suffice to say the negative aspects are
largely attributable to flawed human beings who served as clerics and used
religious principles to rationalize or justify parochial or megalomaniacal
objectives. That said, let us set
aside the negative aspects since they are not contributive to the examination
of this question.
Now,
in the main, religion has espoused heterosexual, monogamous marriage as the
foundation of the family unit. We
could examine the reasons, but I am not sure than would be productive. We can also say, there are
interpretations in religion that advocated (I might even say demanded)
paternal-centric polygamy for one purpose – procreation, i.e., produce more
followers of that particular religious sect; paternal in that males can recycle
in a matter of minutes, while females can only recycle every nine months. There are other religious-based dicta excluding
polygamy that ultimately held the same purpose -- procreation. The transformation of religious dicta
into secular law and enforcement began with the Renaissance. With this transformation, political
thought began elevating individual freedom over the divine right of kings and
eventually over religious dicta.
To me, the critical threshold came with the preamble of the Declaration
of Independence and the Revolutionary War, which separated human governance
from the Crown (kings) and from Religion.
My
point in this meandering along history’s memory lane arises from this
background. The question before us
regarding marriage and non-heterosexual rights boils down to its most
fundamental element – individual versus institutional (whether political or
religious) rights (authority). We
are arguing about where that threshold, boundary or demarcation exists. As I understand and interpret your
words, I draw that line closer to individual rights than you apparently
do. You have very real, bona fide
reasons for favoring institutional rights.
At
the bottom line, I can and do respect your choices, your rights, your perspective,
and I hope you respect mine. If
our respective choices remained within our respective domains, there would be
no debate beyond the social intercourse of contrasting choices. Unfortunately, we are not talking about
mutual respect for our private domains; we are debating the construct of the
law and the enforcement of those laws . . . as those laws have the potential to
intrude and impose upon our private domains.
As
I argue for respect for our private choices, I would be negligent if I did not
argue in parallel for institutional choices. I do not want the government in my private life and
choices. Conversely, you do not
want the government in the institutional choices of your religion. The challenge to both of us is finding
balance. Concomitantly, in seeking
that balance, we must resist using our ideology as justification for the
imposition of our beliefs on others.
We have discussed this threshold question before [629]. My objections
come when institutional rights exceed that threshold.
So,
all of this comes down to the boundary between private and public (or
institutional).
Lastly,
some comments on a few of your points:
1.)
Discrimination. If an
institution wants to draw from the public treasury, then that organization must
abide public law. Also, I can
accept discriminatory practices by an organization as long as members retain
their freedom of choice (come & go), no one is injured or harmed, and the
org makes no demands on the public domain or anyone else’s private domain.
2.) Rights of
children. If protecting children
was as simple as imposing religious dicta, I would enthusiastically support
such imposition. To me, the
protection of children exceeds the privacy rights of parents. However, we have resoundingly
failed. We refuse to hold parents
accountable for the conduct of their children. There are bad parents of all sexual orientations. You cite an example of what may well be
bad homosexual parents. I
respectfully submit, there are also many examples of good, positive homosexual
parents. Frankly, I see far more
examples of bad heterosexual parents than I do bad homosexual parents. Again, respectfully, let us focus on
parenting rather than the private choices of adult citizens, and to me, that
comes from accountability, not dicta.
3.) Polygamy. I
understand where our legal prohibition has come from. What I do not understand is why? Why is polygamy so objectionable? Please explain, if you are able.
4.) Sexual orientation equivalency. I do not think sexual orientation has any
bearing whatsoever on public conduct.
Let us focus on public conduct, not private choices. If we are serious about the welfare of
children, then let us establish standards and accountability enforcement. I could accept your suggestion of
“civil/economic unions,” as long as that definition and associated laws applied
to everyone, but that would render “marriage” as a religious entity and thus
not applicable to the public domain.
I
hope all these words further our discussion and the public debate. Regression is not acceptable. I agree that our nation is struggling
with what equal rights under the law truly means to individual citizens and to
our institutions (both political and religious). We are also struggling with the threshold between public and
private, and to the primacy in those domains.
Does
a fundamental right to privacy exist?
If not, then let us stop wasting time debating matters like
surveillance; the State (or Church) is omnipotent. If so, then where do the boundaries of that privacy exist
and what is acceptable permeability?
. . . Round two:
“Your response is far more detailed than I was expecting, but as a
writer by trade (among a variety of other things!!) I shouldn’t have been
surprised -- and now looking at mine, it too is longer than I intended, these
issues just don't lend themselves to soundbites, which too many of our
politicians have reduced them to!! Recognizing your avoidance of any particular
religion in summarizing the history of religion down to the Declaration of Independence,
I would of course want to add that it wasn’t just human beings who dreamed up
the tenets of their faith, but who were prompted by interaction with the divine
(trying to stay as you wished to do outside of a debate about a particular
religious ideology). With regard to the Declaration of Independence, I would
add that it also recognized that humans have these rights because they were
originally given to us by our Creator -- but that really doesn’t affect the
discussion!
“You noted also the great damage to civilization in the name of
religion -- I couldn’t agree more, but must ask you to concede the point that
it was virtually always those who were manipulating religion and not by those
who were trying to follow it with their hearts -- you noted flawed human beings
who were clerics, but also kings and princes fit this description. In fact, we
are all flawed -- we are all sinners (but that also is for another
discussion!!).
“Finally you hit the essence of the issue on the nail --
individual rights versus the rights of the state. Actually that isn’t so much
at issue as is where in that duality of choice does the religious institution
lie. Are we talking about (1) individual rights versus religious institution’s
rights, or are we talking about (2) the right of the state versus the right of
religious institutions? That really is the essence of our difference of
opinion, because as I see it, you would say the debate is (1), where I would
say the debate is (2).
“The religious institution has no governmental power to legislate.
It is composed of a group of individuals who have joined together because of
common belief. They are free to join or dissociate themselves as they choose.
Governmental legislation affects religious institutions as a collection of individuals.
“We will yet again, probably agree to disagree!!
“To the specific issues you commented on:
"(1) If you are referring to the tax-exempt status of religious
organizations being classified as ‘drawing from the public treasury,’ I think
that is a case where my concern about ‘unintended consequences’ would be a
red-flag waving briskly in the wind. As a nation, I hope you don’t want to
argue that for example since the Catholic Church only ordains men (and
therefore discriminates against women) we should lose our tax exempt status, or
that our priests who have performed the Sacrament of Reconciliation
(Confession) can be held in contempt of court because they refuse to divulge to
a judge what has been confessed to them -- the list really does go on and on.
We truly, I hope, don’t want to go there!!
“(2) Just because there are many cases of failure doesn’t
invalidate the principle.
“(3) If we are to argue from solely the legal principle, it is as
you point out difficult to make a case for not having multiple spouses.
However, there are many examples where laws have been passed for ‘the good of
society.’ Basically, polygamy is a violation of the rights and dignity of all
the parties involved. An article which makes a fair case against polygamy is at
Again, do governments have a ‘right’ to make laws, which may seem
good for society, in general, but which may violate someone’s perceived ‘right’
to be in a polygamist relationship, for example. I would argue that the
principle, whichever side you come down on, also would pertain to the principle
at issue in para (2) above. I would argue that governments do have this right
to make laws that restrict some rights but are for the ‘good of society.’
“(4) We could very likely find common ground with terms such as ‘civil
marriage’ versus ‘sacramental or covenantal marriage.’
“Finally to point out again where our different perspectives lie
is in your sentence: ‘I agree that our nation is struggling...to individual
citizens and to our institutions (both political and religious).’ You either
consciously or unconsciously put religious institutions over against individuals
where I would put religious institutions more with individuals, being a
collection of individuals who freely join together (and are also free to leave
the institution) and who share common values over against the state.
“That, my friend, I believe is the essence of our debate.”
. . . my response to round two:
Re:
Declaration. To me, “. . . endowed
by their Creator . . .” states the matter precisely. Fundamental rights are between me [individual(s)] and our
Creator. They are not matters for
the State. Likewise, no one else
has the right to infringe upon those fundamental rights, except in situations
that cause injury, harm or threat to the public good. It is this last prepositional phrase that presents the
ideological and political battleground.
A couple of examples might be useful in this element:
A.) A group of
citizens decided in 1919 that alcohol should be prohibited for every citizen in
the country because it was injurious to the public good. There were many reasons people used to
justify the prohibition from moral, religious, personal, financial and even
aesthetics. Ultimately, the prohibition
failed because it went far beyond the public domain to dictate private conduct
that had no bearing on public behavior.
B.) As you
noted, we are all sinners . . . indeed!
Sin is between me and God.
The State cannot be the moral enforcer, except where individual sin
injures other citizens or property.
A citizen’s bedroom is NOT the public domain, period.
Re:
damage by religion. That was
precisely my point. I exclude no
one from my statement . . . prince or potentate. We are all equal.
Clerics have abused religion.
So have kings. Just as we
bear witness today . . . the malignant mutation of Islam by a violent mere
fraction of a minority.
Re:
religious institutions. Please
allow me an attempt to clarify.
Governance is secular and between the citizen and the State. Religion and the institutions of
religion are spiritual entities that offer guidance and comfort between the
individual and God. Thus, to me,
religious institutions are in a separate, unique category. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
keeps the State out of religious institutions. However, the inverse is not but should be implied. Religion was a major contributor to A.)
above. More than a few churches
actively campaigned for Prohibition.
The temperance movement began in a church (1826). To me, those churches exceeded the
relationship. Religion can and
should define moral values, e.g., alcohol is Satan’s elixir and must not be
consumed, i.e., individual choice, not dictum for the State to enforce. I am OK with religion banishing an
individual for his sins or violation of the religion’s dicta. Conversely, an individual does not have
a right to religious membership, e.g., the State must enforce that right. Religion is counselor to the
individual, spiritual advisor to the individual. In your ‘essence’ query, I would say neither (1) or
(2). The question is: individual
(private) versus state (public).
Religion, as the spiritual counselor, is an adjunct to the
individual. In so much of this
discussion, religion appears like the State. What ‘authority’ does religion have over the
individual? I suppose part of the
answer rests in what the individual accepts of religious dicta. Since religion works in the private
domain of an individual’s choices, the State must not inject itself into the
private domain, but it is the individual who accepts the guidance of religion
rather than religion dictating the individual’s choices. I’m not sure that makes sense, but I
tried.
I
certainly agree with your definition of a religious institution.
Re:
tax exempt status. No, I was not
suggesting tax-exemption was drawing from the treasury, although in a form, it
is. I was referring to Bush 43’s EO 13199, faith-based governmental spending. I do not see religion as different from
the individual in this aspect. You
draw funds from the treasury, you abide the rules, i.e., public funds come with
conditions.
Re:
good of society. The translation
or interpretation of that phase is the root of this debate. The temperance movement of the late 19th
Century truly believed they were acting for the good of society. Just like a zealous prosecutor, we can
use our interpretation of the ‘good of society’ to justify anything and
everything like what you will eat, how you will wash, when you will flush the
toilet. So, then, where do we draw
the line? When has ‘good of
society’ gone too far? I do agree
and continue to argue that the State has an obligation to legislate and enforce
laws for the common good. The
challenge remains, how do we define the limits of that authority?
Re:
polygamy. The legal history of
Western condemnation of polygamy is well known. I continue to ask, why? The linked article you provided was quite useful. For the benefit of others, the full
citation:
“Why not polygamy? – Is the legalization of polygamy
inevitable in America? From 1965 to 2005, American courts struck down the
traditional sex crimes … Continued”
by John Witte Jr.
faithstreet.com
Published: November 9, 2012
I offer several contrarian perspectives.
A.) Witte
stated, “. . . polygamy is unjust to women and children – a violation of their
fundamental rights and dignity . . .”
To me, the statement is quite indicative of the intellectual and
analytical challenge. I absolutely
agree with the validity of the observation in more than a few cases. However, Witte stopped at the superficial
façade rather than the root cause.
Respectfully, what was unjust to women and children was the legal and
paternalistic Doctrine of Coverture, first formally articulated by Sir William
Blackstone (1765), i.e., women and children were literally the ‘property’ of
the husband (father, male). There are
also examples of polygamous relationships where women and children are treated
with respect. With such
observations as Witte’s, we need to dig deeper rather than condemn the
symptoms. The vestiges of
Coverture were not legally eradicated until 1981 – 1981!! – Kirchberg
v. Feenstra [450 U.S. 455 (1981] [571]. The tentacles of that thinking can be
seen in monogamous, heterosexual, marital relationships to this very day, so it
is hardly an artifact of polygamy.
B.) Witte goes
on to observe, “The Western legal tradition has thus long called polygamy a “malum in se” offense (“bad it inself”).
That category of offenses now also includes slavery, indentured servitude,
obscenity, bestiality, incest, sex with children, self-mutilation, organ-selling,
and more.” Again, an accurate
observation; however, he conveniently ignores history and leaves his statement
at the surface level. We could
take any one of his list and spend some time boring into the root causes and
details. I simply note here, I
cannot accept superficial statements prima
facie.
C.) Witte
concludes, “We prize liberty and equality in America too highly to court such a
risk” – a nice, patriotic statement that is a double-edged sword. He implicitly says, “liberty and
equality” are defined by the majority, or the moral projectionists, or by those
who choose to vote. I will say,
“liberty and equality” are “unalienable” and “endowed by their Creator,” and
are above the law. As such, to
infringe upon those most fundamental rights, we must demonstrate a compelling
public interest for the common or public good . . . not just our moral
objection.
D.) Lastly, I
go back to his opening. Witte
said, “From 1965 to 2005, American courts struck down the traditional sex
crimes of contraception, adultery, fornication, abortion, and sodomy as
violations of modern constitutional norms of liberty, autonomy, and
privacy.” Wow! Where do I begin? We can, and probably should, bore into
each of these “traditional sex crimes,” but that process would take a lot – A
LOT – more effort and words. So, I
will only illuminate my objection to such inflammatory statements, and I will
note, virtually all of these “traditional sex crimes” are moral judgments that should
be private moral choices between the individual and God. I will also say, those “traditional sex
crimes” became crimes in the environment of Coverture, and further I will
suggest, they became law to enforce religious dicta of the day.
Re:
“civil union.” Yes, I think we can
find mutually acceptable balance.
I reiterate my point, civil union should be the extent of State
recognition with appropriate qualifications (constraints), e.g., age of
consent, free will, acceptance of terms, et cetera. In this context, only “civil union” can and should be
recognized by the State . . . for everyone regardless and independent of any
religious choices. The
“sacramental or covenantal marriage” must be distinct, separate, and unique to
religious practice and as such must be a free, uncoerced choice of those
involved.
At
a fundamental level, I do agree with your observation and perspective in your
last paragraph. I would add, yes,
I believe religion is a matter of individual souls and individual choices for a
host of reasons, and thus religion (faith) is a private matter between the
individual and God, and not within the sphere of the public domain or State
authority, as codified in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Whew! That was a lot, but this is a very
important topic for public debate.
. . . Round three:
“We are honing in on the issue from your first paragraph, ‘...threat
or harm to the public good.’ (or ‘common good’ or ‘good of society’ --
essentially equivalent for purposes of this discussion). You also stated
that ‘The state cannot be the moral enforcer, except where individual sin
injures other citizens or property.’ It is, of course, in the definition of
where injury occurs that causes disagreements.
“Re: Tax-exempt status -- In the DHHS guidance for the
implementation of EO 13199 it states: (bold/italics [are the original author’s])
“QUOTE To the extent permitted by law, faith-based organizations
that receive federal financial assistance may — just as secular
non-governmental organizations — use their facilities to provide federally
funded services without removing or altering art, icons, literature, or other
distinctive symbols from these facilities. In addition, faith-based
organizations that apply for or participate in programs supported with federal
financial assistance may retain their organizational identity
including, but not limited to name, internal governance, and mission statements.
“No grantee may discriminate in its delivery of a federally-funded
program against a client or potential client on the basis of religion or
religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to
actively participate in a religious practice. Any specifically religious
activity or service made available to clients by the grantee must be voluntary
as well as separate in time and location from government funded activities and
services. UNQUOTE
“The conditions of the grant are restricted to the purposes of the
grant, and I believe we are not in disagreement!
“Re: Good of Society -- Precisely the point. We can certainly
agree it doesn't extend to flushing the toilet, but more
seriously, does a child have a right to have a ‘mother-figure’ and a ‘father-figure’
when the state is involved in child placement (adoption/foster care)? I
would say yes, and therefore restrict adoption placement to married
heterosexual couples. I'm sure others would not agree, but that's my
opinion. I note your critique of the John Witte article, and despite its
flaws, I think there are some valid points, as you agree, but even with
your observations noted, I would argue that polygamy,
nonetheless, should fall within the limits of ‘for the good of society, let's
not allow this.’ And without opening the discussion to another completely
different topic, let me just note that drug policy also falls under this
category of ‘Where do we draw the 'For the Good of Society' line.’ Unrestricted
personal freedom ultimately does affect society and injures other citizens and
that's where legislators have a huge responsibility in appropriately drawing
the line (this comment isn't intended to apply to the preceding sentence, but
to the entire discussion we have been having).
“Where to draw or not to draw the line, that is the question!!”
. . . my response to round three:
Re:
“good for society.” Then, we
agree. To me, that is precisely
the arena of disagreement. The
moral choices of another citizen that are offensive to others is NOT the class
of injury of which I speak.
Perhaps a related but disassociated example might be useful.
The
Temperance movement began in 1826, when Reverend Lyman Beecher of the 1st
Congregational Church, of Litchfield, Connecticut, observed one of his female
parishioners, suffering and nearly destitute as a consequence of her husband
and father of her children being consumed by alcohol; the man spent his time
and money at the local pub rather than tending to his wife and children . . .
so began the Temperance movement that ultimately led to the 18th Amendment. So, the moral projectionists of the day
went after the symptom – alcohol – rather than the injurious behavior, i.e.,
husbandly neglect. Many of our
moral laws grew from the failure of some men to fulfill their obligations under
coverture, e.g., adultery, masturbation, et cetera. The basis of so many of the moral laws should have been
rescinded along with the rejection of coverture.
Re:
EO13199.
Yes, we are in agreement up to the specific application of the law. However, my opinion extends beyond the
applicable law to all law, including employment law.
Re:
adoption. Very good point! I would argue the child deserves good
parenting, to learn to be a good, productive citizen, who is respectful of
others around them. There are far
too many bad examples of heterosexual parents, and yet we do little or nothing
to hold those negligent parents accountable. There are also examples of homosexual couples who do, in
fact, raise good, respectful, productive citizens. There are also single parents who raise good children. The sexuality of the parents is a
façade symptom, not a root cause.
As such, I absolutely do NOT agree what sexual orientation is a
prerequisite for adoption. Until
we get serious about parental accountability and establish concrete behavioral
standards, I cannot agree with sexual orientation as a basis for
discrimination. I see NO evidence
that sexual orientation has any bearing on parental performance, citizenship,
productivity, or any other public interest parameter. Thus, I reject the notion.
Re:
consumption of psychotropic substances.
Actually, I think it is an example for this discussion . . . and perhaps
a little less sensitive than religion.
I cannot prove the fraction of drug users who themselves are injured by
bad drugs, contaminated paraphernalia, the criminal subculture, et cetera. I believe that fraction is far greater
than we know. Further, do drug
users cause injury to others . . . yes, absolutely, without a doubt. Thus, consumption of psychotropic
substances is a matter of public interest. Where we differ is the application of the law for the “good
of society.” Drugs are not the
issue, just like guns are not the root cause of gun violence. Let us focus on the root cause
behaviors than threaten the ‘good of society’ rather than the tools or
symptoms.
We
must go beyond the symptom to deal with the root cause to address the ‘good of
society.’ We cannot stop at our
moral offense or outrage.
. . . Round four:
“Just a question...how would you go about dealing with the ‘root
causes’ of
(1) bad parenting of children
(2) bad behavior of a husband toward his wife (‘husbandly
neglect’) or vice versa!!
(3) gun violence
(4) drug abuse
to name a few that have been mentioned, without the government
getting much, much deeper into monitoring our personal lives?
“I certainly agree that within marriage both parties should be
absolutely equal.
“If we can get at ‘root causes’ without undue guidance from big
brother, I would be interested, but my ‘pea brain’ right now can't imagine
how. I think we should stick to the manifestations of bad behavior,
or my red flag of unintended consequences starts waving again!
“Re: EO 13199. We have previously agreed to disagree from an
earlier exchange regarding employment law. I still maintain that government
can't require a religious institution to violate their principles. It goes back
to where the religious institution lies on the continuum between government and
individual (I maintain that the individual and religious institution are
virtually co-located on that line).
“Re: Single gender parenting. I defer full response until after
our discussion of ‘root causes’ above, but however well intentioned, single
gender couple cannot provide the role model of the non-represented gender,
in my mind, an a priori disqualifier.
I recognize that my stance on this is contrary to established
jurisprudence and -- but it is still my opinion that it should not be
allowed.”
. . . my response to round four:
Since
you asked . . .
“(1) bad parenting of children” – first, we should hold
parents accountable for the conduct of their children. They cannot claim ignorance. Complacency is unacceptable. We must also educate everyone including
children on the enforcement change.
We must also impress upon everyone beyond puberty that procreation
responsibility exists regardless of circumstances or intentions. Children should only be brought into
this world to be loved and raised properly to be good citizens. We must break the essentially laissez-faire paradigm in practice to
date.
“(2) bad behavior of a husband toward his wife
("husbandly neglect") or vice versa!!” – the same is true in
this area as well – accountability.
A great deal of that process would depend upon intelligence and
history. See below.
“(3) gun violence” – as we have discuss earlier in this
forum, gun violence is mental illness linked to no.1 above. Our task is essentially intervention
before the disturbance or abnormality reaches violence and injury to others. This area and the above demands better
mental health treatment, better pre-natal care, et cetera.
“(4) drug abuse” – this issue is more individual and
personal. Our task is to break the
link between or dependency upon crime and consumption. I am also most interested in eliminating
the collateral damage, i.e., injury to others. If an individual seeks the oblivion of consumption, then our
interest should be enabling that consumption in such a manner that eliminates
the collateral damage.
You added the very important qualifier ‘without
the government getting much, much deeper into monitoring our personal
lives.’ This is the crux of
it all. The details of all of the
above depend upon intelligence, i.e., collecting dots and connecting those
dots. Without such intelligence,
we will continue to be relegated to reacting to violent or bad events after the
fact. I offered the notion of an
intermediate extra-prosecutorial agency between social services and law
enforcement. I called the notional
agency the social police (a very bad title, but I can’t think of a better
one). The social police is an
intelligence group and thus their processes must be insulated from political
influences and the output cannot be used for prosecution. Their task is to identify the bad
people. Intervention then becomes
illumination, education and treatment.
Our intervention radar gain is set far too low, and the result is we
suffer random acts of violence by disturbed people. Again, we must break the paradigm.
Any
one of your topics needs more than a few sentences, which is beyond the
capacity of this forum. I think
the point is, we cannot keep doing what we have always done. It has not worked and it will never
work without sacrificing our freedom.
Re:
religion. I would agree, as I have
tried to state previously, religion is much closer to the individual than the
State. Yet, that does not exempt
religion from the law anymore than the individual is exempt. EO13199 took the State toward
religion. The concept was good and
well-intentioned, but it also blurred the separation between Church and State,
which was not a good thing.
Re:
single gender parenting. OK, now
it’s your turn. How would you
propose we enforce “should not be allowed”?
. . . Round five:
“The devil is in the details as they say! You are, of course, very
aware that to do this job of ‘social police’ (I agree there must be a better
name for what we're talking about) there has to be a collection of the ‘dots’
that they need to ‘connect.’ In this day and age of increasing ability of other
organizations to monitor us (I wonder what Google right now knows about me when
they analyze just my online presence -- the websites I look at, the things I
buy online, my comments on Facebook, who I follow on Twitter, the content of my
email, my address book, etc.), I already am beginning to shudder at how much
(little!!) privacy I actually have. Giving a governmental organization (even an
extra-prosecutorial one) the remit to collect all the ‘dots’ about me and then
connect them to determine if I'm raising my child properly or treating my wife
respectfully or if any of my family have signs of mental imbalance that needs
to be addressed etc. really does raise the red-flag of unintended consequences
(in addition to ‘mission creep’ over the years). Anyone with concerns about
individual privacy and personal liberty (the vast majority of us, I would
hope!!) should be very frightened at even the idea of the establishment of this
kind of a governmental organization.
“Re: religion. I recognize we're plowing old ground, but the issue
I was (and am) concerned about was enacting laws that force religious
organizations to choose between obeying the law or obeying their conscience.
“Re: single gender parenting. As you mentioned, this topic needs
far more than a few sentences and is beyond my capacity (and your forum) to
fully develop, but suffice to say that there are many categories of households
that for very many reasons are not ideal and also for very many reasons are
beyond the scope of government to fix (Child Protective Services and Family
Courts can only do so much). Where the government does have a role is in the
regulation of the placement of children who are wards of the court/state with
adoptive families/foster families. My solution is to limit the placement of
these children to families where there is both a mother-figure and a
father-figure who have been screened (as is now the case with home studies) for
suitability before placement.”
. . . my response to round five:
Re:
‘social police.’ I agree; not a
good title, but I haven’t come up with a better one, as yet. I also share your concern about
allowing further access to our private lives. My proposal at least starts at the very basics, e.g., the
collection of public information, i.e., traffic ticket, arrest record,
suspension or expulsion from school, et cetera. So much of the public information is not collected or
collated, or analyzed for signs.
If we live our lives without broaching a concern threshold, then there
is no record. We cannot allow the
USG into private matters by the 4th Amendment. Public information is not protected by the 4th Amendment. Law Enforcement (LE) generally does not
analyze the information they collect until they have reason to believe a crime
has been committed. The social
police are not looking for crime, but for signs of instability, e.g., mental
illness, erratic behavior, aggressiveness, anti-social conduct, et cetera. The police cannot look for things like
that; the social police should. The
social police are in essence an intelligence unit. They confront anti-social behavior in an attempt to help
correct that conduct before it verges on crime, which then becomes a LE
matter. The social police would
collect public information that is well below the criminal threshold that would
trigger LE. Are there risks? Yes. Can we mitigate those risks? Yes, in my opinion. Clearly, relying upon LE has not worked
until someone gets hurt. We must
change the process to bridge the gap, if we are to have any hope of protecting
innocent people from injury by the hands of deranged individuals, who managed
to float below the threshold of LE.
Re:
religion. Actually, I agree. The Establishment Clause prohibits the
State from interference in Church affairs. However, the inverse is allowed by implication. If the Church confined itself to matter
of the soul (individuals), then there would be no conflict. However, many religious organizations
choose to inject themselves is secular, governance matters in the public
domain, which negates their First Amendment protection, i.e., they are just
another political organization.
Further, religious organizations cannot draw public funds without
constraints, i.e., we cannot fund a madrasa that espouses jihad, simply because
it is a religious school. I have
voiced my opinion regarding employment law and religious employers.
Re:
parenting. Then, I suppose we
shall respectfully disagree. There
are far too many horrible mother-father examples. The gender or sexual orientation of the parent(s) is simply
insufficient to define good parenting, and superficial at best. Full stop!
. . . Round six:
“Re: Social police: I can't see how this could work without giving
up a huge amount of personal privacy -- that I am extremely disinclined to do.
“Re: Religion: As acknowledged -- old ground, but religious
institutions must have the right to hire people without forfeiting their
principles. Potential employees must be advised of the caveats of insurance
coverage, for instance, before employment, but no one is forced to accept
employment by a religious institution. If they do agree to employment, they
must accept the conditions.
“Re: Parenting: The bad examples are almost never from state
placed adoptions where prospective parents have been screened and vetted. For
all those children so placed by the state, the child should have a right to
both a mother-figure and a father-figure. Many children in the system for
adoption already have relationship issues and should be put in situations where
they can best develop both healthy male and female relationships.
“The exchange of ideas has been illuminating! Failure to agree is
not to say taking the time to express them has not been worth the effort.”
. . . my response to round six:
Re:
social police. Continuing to do
what we have always done will not yield the change we seek no matter how long
we persist.
Re:
religion. I understand the
objective in principle. The
challenge remains: where do we draw the line? If religious organizations are exempt from employment law, are
they also exempt from financial, or even criminal law, if they religious
principles are offended? What are
the limits? If religious
organizations are allowed social discriminators, e.g., skin pigmentation, hair
color, gender, et al, what is the threshold beyond which those religious
organizations are no longer consistent with our foundational principles of
equal protection under the law?
There are always conditions of employment, but how far can those
conditions go?
Re:
parenting. Like so many issues, we
should be focused on performance and/or root causes, not superficial factors
driven by dictum. I advocate for
good parents who raise children to be respectful, productive citizens, and I
cannot see that performance is in anyway dependent upon any of the social
factors. Unfortunately, I think we
are relegated to the respectful disagreement status.
I
absolutely agree. These
discussions are vital to a free society that must continuously seek
balance. Thank you for your
contributions. I expect others
will benefit as well.
. . . Round seven:
“I said I would leave it rest, but I have to make one last set of
comments:
“Re: Social police. The idea just plain scares me.
“Re: Religion. We draw the line where it affects faith principles.
Speaking from my experience as the recently retired Business Manager of our
church, we followed virtually every aspect of employment law (required breaks,
properly paying overtime, pay rates, providing pensions), all building codes,
all safety codes, all fire codes, all child welfare rules and regulations for
our pre-school, and on and on. If it doesn't violate our religious principles
(and in truth very, very few issues ever rise to that threshold), we should be
required to adhere faithfully to the law (which we do) -- and be held
accountable.
“Re: Parenting: A same gender couple cannot provide the role model
of the non-represented gender. The right of the child to both gender
role-models trumps, in my opinion, the desire of a same gender couple to adopt
a child. Concur, we respectfully disagree.”
. . . my response to round seven:
Re:
social police. Agreed, the notion
scares me as well. We must do
something significant to alter the paradigm. I am certainly open for suggestions that I could
enthusiastically endorse. We
simply cannot continue to do what we have always done and expect better results.
Re:
religion. I accept your
representation of the church’s position regarding the law and faith. I will simply re-state my belief that
faith should be much stronger than is implied in this segment of our
exchange. The impression I am left
with is, the church does not have faith in its employees to make the correct
decision, such that the church must enforce its policy. Full stop!
Re:
parenting. We shall respectfully
disagree. There are far too many
examples to the contrary on both sides of your statement.
. . . Round eight:
“So very sorry, but I have to make one last comment:
“Re: Religion. There are some classes of employee (those charged
with passing on the faith, teachers, directors of religious education, etc.)
for which we do have faith in them to make appropriate choices (as we would see
them), but there are others (maintenance or administrative personnel,
bookkeepers, IT specialists, etc.) for whom the orthodoxy of their faith is not
nearly as high on the hiring criteria. All employees however must know the
conditions of employment prior to accepting employment. It still comes down to
not forcing us to choose between violating the law, or violating our
fundamental religious principles.
“OK, I solemnly vow not to kick the can any further down the road.”
. . . my response to round eight:
No
worries. What does not make it in
this week’s Update we can continue into next week’s edition or any subsequent
version. These discussions are
just too important.
Re:
religion. I will not quibble with
your differentiation between faith and other employees. I will only say, to my thinking, having
faith in all employees would seem to be a more noble and appropriate political
position in this whole employment law application issue that opened this
thread.
A different
contribution:
“Vaccinating cured the world of diseases that are now rare
especially in this country.
“What our Gov't needs to do is pass a law making it mandatory to
have children Vaccinated.
“Of course there need to be exceptions. But not by choice or
religion.
“Everyone is Everyone.
“All the money spent to find cures and all the research will be in
vane. If Measles is on the rampage in this country, what’s next. Polio?
“I'm for Vaccinating
“But this gov't lacks the insight to move on important things.
“Like ISIS, we'll just wait till they take over like the Nazis
did. Only this time we're fighting an unseen army
“But that’s another topic.”
My reply:
I
can most definitely argue the public good of universal vaccinations. However, ultimately, as with so many
topics, this comes down to the threshold between public and private. Is there sufficient public good for the
State to impose upon a citizen’s private domain and even more so a child
without the right of consent.
Short
of mandatory vaccinations as you propose, we have an obligation to protect the
public domain for the common good.
An individual’s private choices cannot be allowed to bring harm to the
public domain. People who choose
not to vaccinate their children against many common, communicable diseases,
must bear the responsibility to the public domain.
Even
my proposal breaks down in that infected individuals may be in a contagious
state prior to symptoms presenting, which in turn adds weight to your proposal.
For
now, the argument for a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy is so profound
and pervasive that I will hold to the primacy of the private domain and accept
the risk of infection prior to symptoms.
Further, if we cannot voluntarily maintain quarantine of infected
individuals, then mandatory quarantine (forcible if necessary) will be required
for the public good and general welfare of our society.
. . . a follow-up
comment:
"It comes right down to mandatory, which is what I'm saying. Vaccinations
are for the good of the public. They were in the 30's and 40's as they are now.
"We're seeing what voluntary has brought up . What next."
. . . my follow-up
reply:
You
make a good point. Back in our
youth, I do not recall any consent being involved when we got the polio
vaccine. I happen to believe
vaccinations are indeed for the public good, but I struggle with a citizen’s
fundamental right to privacy, as I said, and frankly infringements and
intrusions by the State in our private affairs are a far greater concern . . .
to me.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
