Update from the Heartland
No.582
4.2.13 – 10.2.13
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to ratchet
up the tension over the disputed Senkaku Islands [567, 574]. Japan reported a People’s Liberation
Army Navy ship aimed missiles at a Japanese naval vessel operating in the East
China Sea. Defense Minister
Itsunori Onodera of Japan lodged a formal protest over the matter, and publicly
said, “This is extremely abnormal behavior, and we believe with a small mistake
it could have led to a very dangerous situation.”
-- Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov of Bulgaria announced
the results of the investigation into the tourist bus bombing in Burgas in July
2012 [553]. The attack targeted an Israeli tourist
bus. Tsvetanov laid blame for the attack on members of the military wing of the
Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
As a consequence, the European Union must surely reconsider whether to
designate the Iranian-backed Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and crack
down on its extensive fund-raising operations across the continent.
-- In an unusual twist, the 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals will hear arguments by the government and defendant against presiding U.S. District Judge Jed Saul Rakoff of the Southern
District of New York in the case of SEC v. Citigroup [USDC NY SD case
1:11-cv-07387-JSR (2011)] [520]. As you may recall, Judge Rakoff
rejected a US$285M SEC Consent Judgment against Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. Both the government and
defendant objected to the judge’s action as beyond his authority. I suspect that the case will go to the
Supremes no matter how the appeals court decides, simply because of the rarity
of such action.
A purported
Department of Justice “white paper” titled: “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is
a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force,” has been
circulated among various Press entities and as a consequence instigated quite a
disturbance in the Force. There
are a number of prima facie facts that cause me more than a little concern.
1.) The supposed USG “white paper” is amply watermarked with
NBC News.
2.) It is certainly not an official USG document – no
letterhead.
3.) It is undated and unsigned.
4.) There is no attribution as to who generated the
document.
To be blunt, the document looks like a plethora of spam docs
circulated in cyberspace with malice of one form or another. Normally, I would not have wasted my
time reading such a document. This
whole sequence stinks to high heaven.
With all the yammering by the Press and various talking heads, I
acquiesced.
I
am far more troubled by the back-handed disclosure of what surely has to be
highly classified, national security information than I am by the subject
matter of the “white paper.” The
Obama administration released a series of classified and/or sensitive Justice
Department, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memoranda from the Bush
administration [381, 384]. According to the alleged government document, the Executive
may use lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen, if three (3)
conditions are met.
A. “an informed, high-level official of the United States
government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat
of violent attack against the United States,
B. “capture is infeasible, and the United States continues
to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and,
C. “the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent
with applicable law of war principles.”
Having read numerous similar OLC memoranda, the language and
content appear authentic, yet we have no means to establish veracity. The opinion argument is a bit weak on
the constitutional implications, but other than detail, it does make a
reasonable case for and support of the actions of at least two administrations.
After
writing the above assessment, the White House apparently directed the Justice
Department to release certain, related, classified documents discussing the
legal justification for targeting American citizens abroad who are considered
terrorists, to the two Congressional intelligence committees. We may not get to see the actual
documents until they are leaked or declassified.
After all these
gut-wrenching convulsions about drone strikes, targeted killings, collateral
damage, American enemies, due process, and such, the Wall Street Journal reported that “senior U.S. officials” are
pressing to expand the targeting list to include the Algerian militant Mokhtar
Belmokhtar [579], the
self-proclaimed mastermind of last month’s attack on an Algerian natural-gas
facility that claimed the lives of 37 foreign hostages. The additions to the U.S.
targeted-killing list would represent a significant expansion into northwestern
Africa.
“Push to Expand U.S. 'Kill List' – Officials Press to Mark
Algerian Militant Linked to Gas-Plant Attack as Target for Death or Capture”
by Siobhan Gorman, Adam Entous and Devlin Barrett
Wall Street Journal
Published: February 8, 2013, 10:32 p.m. ET
The absolutely staggering aspect of these latest revelations
is the suggestion that Belmokhtar and so many other terrorist leaders were not
on such a list a long time ago.
These bad guys are not new to terrorism and criminal activities.
The House of
Commons voted to approve the Marriage (Same Sex
Couples) Bill that will enable non-heterosexual, same-gender marriage in
the United Kingdom. The generally
reported Press vote count was 400-175.
I’ve tried to get a precise vote count. A friend and collaborator in the Motherland pegged the
Commons vote at 468-38. The BBC
published what they called “The full list of MPs voting for or against the
government's same-sex marriage legislation” – that count is 396-172-5
(77). According to the BBC’s list,
Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party voted 127-136-5 (35) on the
bill. Regardless, the bill does
not become law until the Queen grants her assent. Until then, the legislation now goes to the House of Lords,
which is expected to approve the new law. However, Lord Carey of Clifton (AKA George Leonard Carey),
the former Archbishop of Canterbury (1991-2002), publicly indicated the peers
will “ask searching and uncomfortable questions about the legislation.” I truly hope so. Such questions usually illuminate quite
adequately.
Regardless of
your opinion / attitude regarding those who do not look like us, behave like
us, or think like us, every human being should watch this video.
“Fifty shades of gay”
TEDxWomen 2012
FILMED DEC 2012 • POSTED JAN 2013 •
The speaker, iO Tillett Wright, offers a simple, concise,
direct message to make us all better citizens. Enjoy!
A classmate of
mine offered this contribution:
“I thought you might be interested in reading this in your
copious spare time.
“Below is an article where the authors take lessons from Ayn
Rand ‘Atlas Shrugged’ to suggest what
we need to do to revive America. They are:
1) celebrate business,
2) be proud of profits and
3) forget about the public good.
Your thoughts???”
The article in question:
“3 crucial lessons Ayn Rand can teach us today”
by Yaron Brook, Don Watkins
FoxNews.com
Published February 02, 2013
My reply:
In
the main, I would agree. However,
from my perspective, the treatment by Brook, et al, smacks of selective
interpretation. Yes, Rand was an
out-spoken proponent of free-market capitalism. Again, in general, I have always agreed with her (and
others). Unfortunately, there are
bad men in the world. The
free-market capitalism of Rand’s vision is quite akin to the Wild, Wild West .
. . survival of the fittest, of the most firepower, and of the fastest
gun. If all men were good, then
there would be no need for regulation; unfortunately, that is a utopian notion.
It
can be argued that communism is the ideal political system – everyone is equal
by definition, all for one, one for all.
However, human nature has never been and probably will never be worthy
of such utopian concepts.
Capitalism does encourage the profit motive, which is a powerful
motivating force. As noted in the
Brook article, that profit motive has led to incalculable innovation and
progress. Yet, I cannot subscribe
to the suggestion that un-regulated, free-market capitalism, as it inherently
treats human beings as consumable resources like any other raw material. Benevolent capitalism can and does
indeed work on its own. There are
good business leaders who see labor as a valued asset to be nurtured, cared
for, and protected. Again,
regrettably, not all businessmen are so enlightened.
Ayn
Rand’s capitalism is just as impractical as Karl Marx’s communism, as neither
acknowledges the frailties and inherent flaws of mankind.
. . . follow-up
comment:
“I read your comments and agree with them.
“While [at the library] , I saw "Atlas Shrugged" and checked it
out. I hear folks refer to it often enough. Ayn's
birthday is February 2.
That book has 1166 pages. This ain't going to be easy like "TWA 800
Accident or Incident" was. But, hey, I am already up to page
7.”
. . . my
follow-up comment:
My
parents always pumped Ayn Rand’s work and especially “Atlas Shrugged.” I was never much of a fan. My father was a perpetual, staunch,
anti-union man, having lived in the middle of Walter Reuther’s longshoreman
organizing efforts in San Francisco.
I was never a pro-union guy, but I was enough of a historian to
recognize the destructive forces of corporate & individual profit and the
need for unions to balance the ledger – one of many reasons I am so attached to
the word balance. Rand did not
look kindly on the union movement.
Too many “businessmen” are enamored and blinded by profit, their own
greed, and the paucity of any sense of community. The quarterly report to the board and bankers, and their
associate bonuses are the extent of their visible horizon.
I
left the cockpit for management with the belief you could treat people with
respect and still make money.
Clearly, I was not successful, so perhaps my premise was invalid . . .
although I am not yet willing to concede the point.
Surprise,
surprise! I was pleased to learn
from the National Conference of State Legislatures that bills legalizing death
with dignity are being considered in Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, and to my utter amazement in Kansas. I would to think my efforts have contributed to the Kansas
surprise, but I have not been so recognized. There are also bills related to the issue under
consideration in New Hampshire, New York, Arizona and Montana. There is hope yet for more
compassionate laws before I reach that stage of my life.
We noted a recent
ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case
of Noel
Canning v. NLRB [DC CCA no.
12-1115 (2013)] [580]. The right-leaning talking heads hyped
the ruling as a smack down of President Obama. The case mutated from a simple labor dispute to a
constitutional challenge of significant proportion on a variety of levels.
Noel
Canning, a Division of the Noel Corporation, petitioned for the Judiciary to review
a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision finding that the company
violated the National
Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA or Wagner Act) [PL 74-I-198; 49
Stat. 449; 5.July.1935] by refusing to reduce to writing and execute a
collective bargaining agreement reached with Teamsters Local 760. The NLRB decided for the union. The company challenged the decision,
claiming the NLRB did not have a quorum and thus had no authority to render
judgment. Three of the five
statutory board members were given “recess appointments” by President Obama in
January 2012. The DC Circuit’s
decision focused on the interpretation of two words in the Constitution –
“recess” and “happen.” The
three-judge appeals court panel agreed unanimously that the meaning and usage
of “recess” in Article
II, Section 2, Clause 3; namely, a recess only occurs between
sessions of Congress, as opposed to adjournments that usually happen for
holidays or other times where Congress is not otherwise in session. Chief Judge David Bryan Sentelle
summarized the court’s decision, “[T]he Board lacked authority to act for want
of a quorum, as three members of the five-member Board were never validly
appointed because they took office under putative recess appointments which
were made when the Senate was not in recess.” Judge Thomas
Beall Griffith wrote a concurring opinion to voice his contention the court
should have stopped at their decision on recess. He disagreed with his colleagues when they went on to
further narrow the President’s authority to make recess appointments to only
those Executive vacancies that actually occur or “happen” during an
intersession recess, contrary to common practice for the last century.
While
I agree with the DC Circuit’s decision and interpretation of the Constitution,
and I suspect if the case goes to the Supremes, they will concur, I am troubled
the current state of the U.S. Senate.
By withholding their constitutional “Advice and Consent,” they are
essentially paralyzing the NLRB, rendering it toothless and without authority
to perform its statutory functions.
We have discussed the “Advice and Consent” provisions of the
Constitution [Article
II, Section 2, Clause 2] [581]. With a paucity of specificity, the
Senate has applied its rather liberal interpretation regarding it Advice and
Consent authority. If the Supreme
Court sustains the Noel Canning decision, we will have further dysfunction in the
federal government as well as even more erosion of union influence in the labor
market.
News from the economic front:
-- Several sources reported that Justice Department and
state prosecutors intend to file civil charges alleging wrongdoing by Standard
& Poor’s Ratings Services in its rating of mortgage bonds before the
financial crisis erupted in 2008.
The Justice Department had been in settlement talks with S&P,
however, negotiations broke down when the USG indicated it would seek a settlement
in excess of US$1B, which would wipe out the profits of S&P’s parent
company, McGraw-Hill Company, for an entire year. The likely move by prosecutors would be the first federal
enforcement action against a credit-rating firm for alleged illegal behavior
related to the crisis.
-- Indonesia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expanded by 6.1%
in 4Q2012, compared to a year earlier.
Demand for everything from cement to instant noodles has continued to
drive robust economic growth in Indonesia, defying the global uncertainty and
domestic concern about resurgent economic nationalism and widening trade
deficits.
-- President François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande of
France has issued a clear warning over the current strength of the euro
damaging the European economy, calling for international action to dampen
currency distortions. He declared,
“The euro should not fluctuate according to the mood of the markets.” Hollande also said, “A monetary zone must
have an exchange rate policy. If
not it will be subjected to an exchange rate that does not reflect the real
state of the economy.” He is
advocating for “an indispensable reform of [the] international monetary
system.”
-- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects economic
growth to be slow and jerky in 2013, in part because of USG fiscal contraction,
but it anticipates better economic performance in 2014, as the recovery takes
hold. The CBO reported economic
growth and recent legislation have cut the federal budget deficit in half in
the past four years, but federal debt will still hit historic levels if more
isn't done.
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) kept its main refinancing
rate steady at 0.75%, despite mounting concerns a strengthening euro exchange
rate might strangle prospects for growth later this year.
-- The Financial Times
reported that EU leaders agreed a seven-year budget after a final bargaining
session in Brussels lasting more than 24 hours. While the details are not yet available to the public,
according to FT, the fiscal conservatives like the UK and Germany apparently prevailed
over those member states seeking more robust spending.
-- The PRC’s exports increased 25% from a year earlier, the
fastest pace since April 2011 and up from 14.1% in December. Imports increased 28.8%, more than
four-times December’s 6% rate, suggesting strong growth both in the PRC and
elsewhere for 2013.
London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR)
Debacle [552]:
-- The Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) agreed to pay £390M
(US$612.6M) in fines to the U.K. Financial Services Authority, the U.S.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, for
the bank’s involvement in the LIBOR scandal. RBS is 82% owned by U.K. taxpayers and is the third of 16
lenders to be punished in the rate-fixing investigation. RBS indicated the bank’s involvement
was predominantly linked to 21 employees, who have either left the bank or been
disciplined. We can only hope the
managers who decided to execute this fraud will face the weight of criminal
justice.
-- A former star trader in Tokyo, Hideto “Eddy” Takata, a
derivatives trader who worked for several investment banks until 2008, claims
that Japan’s banks have collectively kept the Tokyo InterBank Lending Rate
[TIBOR] benchmark “artificially high” since the global financial crisis to
boost profits on domestic products such as mortgages. He has accused Japanese banks of operating a “cartel” in loan
pricing, forcing higher rates on millions of borrowers and hampering central
bank efforts to spark lending in the world’s third-largest economy. I suspect we shall soon add TIBOR to
the LIBOR scandal.
-- So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved,
international banks are:
· Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550]
· Bank
of America [U.S.]
· BTMU
[Japan]
· Citibank
[U.S.]
·
Credit Suisse
[Switzerland]
·
Deutsche Bank [Germany] – US$654M LIBOR profit [578]
·
Lloyds TSB [UK]
·
HSBC [UK]
· HBOS
[UK]
· JPMorgan
Chase [U.S.]
· Rabobank
[Netherlands]
· RBC
[Canada]
· RBS [UK] – £390M (US$612.6M) in fines,
21 employees involved [582]
· UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged [575]
· West
LB [Germany]
·
Norinchuckin [Japan]
I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have
done.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.581:
“And now my reason for this reply -- Many supposedly ‘constitutional
rights’ cause people to elevate the simple subject matter of a ‘right’ to an
exalted status without actually reading what the Constitution says about the
subject. For gun rights, people
ignore the fact that the framers of the Bill of Rights premised the entire ‘right’
on the presupposition that a ‘well, regulated militia’ was involved and did not
give the individual rights except in context with his or her participation in
that militia. On the supposed ‘freedom of religion’ article, people often
ignore what the Bill of Rights says and broaden it to a universal concept,
rather than the narrow restriction on the power of Congress regarding religion
that was actually included. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ is a
fairly direct restriction on Congress' powers which collaterally gives the
people a right to be free to exercise their religion without interference of
Congress. Never has it been held that Congress (and States after the 14th Amendment)
does not have the power to legislate on matters dealing with moral issues,
simply because those moral issues are within the belief system of some religion
or the other. Ask the old Mormons whether Congress has the power to legislate
about plural marriage. Ask Cardinal Mahony whether the US Courts have the power
to force the Catholic Church to identify child molesters contrary to church
dogma and policy. Exercise of
religion does not mean the adherents of a religion are free to ignore the law
of the land. Giving all citizens the right to the same level of medical care
does not infringe on a religion's ability to teach, proselyte, organize and
celebrate (i.e. exercise) their faith. A religion that believes child marriage
of any girl who is menstruating is valid in the sight of God, does not mean
Congress or the states cannot restrict the practice of child marriage. A
religion that disagrees with contraception or abortion cannot be restricted
from speaking out and striving to change the law and urge others to act in a
manner they believe is correct, but they cannot violate the law or the rights
of others in that process. The Courts have already ruled that a citizen does
not have the right to withhold payment of taxes because he disagrees with what
the government does with the tax money. So, too, a business (even a religious
entity) that is required by law to pay insurance for its employees, cannot
refuse to pay the insurance because they disagree with how the insurance
company (or the employee) pays for medical services. People need to read the Bill of Rights - it is a compilation
of words, and if you ignore any words on its face and assume words that are not
there, you will come up with a loony result.
My reply:
Re:
constitutional rights. Thank you
for your observations. Well said
and spot on. I’ll pass on the
militia (for another time) and focus on religion – the topic at hand. Unfortunately, Judeo-Christian
religious interpretation has exerted extraordinary political influence in this
country from the Witch Trials of 1692 to this very day, across so many issues
like pornography, polygamy, obscenity, non-heterosexuality, age of consent,
prostitution, psychotropic substance consumption, et cetera ad infinitum. I do not believe folks are trying to
impose upon religion. I defend the
right of any person or organization including religious entities to speak their
mind and to use their inherent power of persuasion to convince others of the
rightness of their beliefs. Where
we get crosswise comes when religion tries to impose their beliefs on
others. To me, the debate about
contraception and religion is just a subset of private versus public,
individual versus government. The
USG’s PPACA provisions simply make contraception available to all
citizens. It is an individual’s
private decision whether to avail themselves of that service. If an employee of a religious
organization believes in the dicta of the religion and chooses not to use the
service, it is and should be their free choice alone, not the dicta of an
employer.
I
think we are agreed.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears to be caving to the
religious dicta of some organizations.
Far too many Americans believe it is their moral right to dictate how
all Americans should live, believe, act, and think. That is NOT freedom.
Comment to the Blog:
“I have had numerous conversations regarding the issue you
raise vis-à-vis religious freedom of institutions v. private choice.
Most people (not putting you in that corner necessarily) don't fully understand
the religious freedom piece of the issue.
“The real issue is often obscured by people’s opinions on
the provision of contraceptive services -- which misses the point.
“The issue IS: Can our government require Church
organizations to fund practices which contradict their religious principles?
“The issues are NOT: 1) Do you agree that contraception is a
much health benefit that should be available for all women?, or 2)Do you agree
with the Catholic position on contraception?, or even 3) Do Catholics
themselves practice what their Church teaches and believes? Discussions on
these and similar questions mask the true issue at stake.
“The real point is that if the government requires the
Church to offer the option of having birth control measures available, and if
that option is exercised by any employee, Catholic or non-Catholic, the
Catholic Church would then be compelled to fund services it deems morally
wrong.
“The implementation of the proposed HHS mandate would
establish the principle that our government can override by legislation (or
executive order) a position held in faith by a religious institution. This
principle, if allowed to stand, would give our government the precedent to
impose on religious institutions even further secular policies which conflict
with their teachings and beliefs. This would be a crack in the wall protecting
religious freedom and the separation of church and state in America that we
all, regardless of our personal stance on the specific issue of contraception,
must not allow. That consequence would truly be a blow to religious liberty and
is why the Catholic Church opposes the HHS mandate requiring them to fund
contraceptive measures for its employees to which it has a religious and moral
objection.
My response to the Blog:
I
believe I understand the Catholic Church’s position on contraception. The church has every right to espouse
whatever position it wishes . . . as long as that position does not cause
injury to another person or impose upon the freedom of choice of another
citizen.
To
me, this issue boils down to its most fundamental element – private versus
public; individual versus collective.
I do agree the government does not have the right to impose its will on
religious organizations. There are
numerous Supreme Court decisions that affirm that protection. I appreciate why religious
organizations like the Catholic Church object to laws like PPACA, well at least
the contraception provision as well as others I imagine.
I
see this debate from an entirely different perspective. Does a religious organization have the
right or authority to impose its will on an individual’s fundamental right to
privacy and an individual’s private freedom of choice? Where do we draw the line? What obligation does the government have
to protect the individual rights of citizens, even in those instances where a
conflict exists, as in this question?
That
said (or asked), I have mixed feelings regarding this related question of
employment law. I could easily
argue . . . caveat emptor . . . a
person who accepts employment with the Catholic Church should know what he is
getting into regarding dogma. U.S.
employment law was largely created to protect the individual from the power of
the employer. As with all
questions, our challenge is finding the balance between the employee and
employer, between the individual and the collective. What is the public interest for a government, a corporation,
or a church to impose upon the freedom of choice in a citizen’s private
matters?
. . . follow-up
comment:
“Here's where I believe your argument rubs wrong...
“The Catholic Church doesn't impose it's will on anyone --
it merely makes a stand on what people should do. It doesn't cause injury or
impose on anyone's freedom to choose what they do.
“Use an analogy:
Your son says he wants to go to see a movie and wants you to
give him the money. You say ‘What movie?’ It turns out that it's something you
don't think is appropriate for him. You tell him you're not going to
pay for him to see it. He may use his own income from
mowing the neighbor's lawn if he wishes, but you're not going to subsidize
behavior that you object to.
“It's not a perfect analogy, but the point is the Church
believes strongly that sexual activity should be between married partners and
that any sexual activity should be open to the creation of new life. No one,
including the leadership of the Catholic Church, is blind to the fact that
many choose to disregard this, but yet our role is to stand for the values
that we believe flow from the teachings of Christ. We don't ‘impose our will,’
but we do proclaim our values even though they aren't necessarily
followed by all Catholics -- we are after all, ALL sinners, which is why
we all need God's grace!!
“But yet, to REQUIRE the church to pay for behavior that
people freely choose to engage in that the Church deems it morally
objectionable IS a violation of freedom of religion.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Sex,
religion and politics are always volatile and sensitive arenas. I try very hard to be respectful
without being intimidated. I have
no desire or intent to rub anyone wrong.
If I did so, then please accept my humble apologies.
Re:
imposition. I suppose as with most
views, it all depends upon perspective.
The analogy is a good one; let’s run with it. First, I do not know about how health care for employees of
the Catholic Church is handled, but our family health care (outside the
military) was partially paid for by the company, as a benefit of employment,
and a significant contribution by each employee. It is not paid for entirely by the employer. So, I suspect it is not a simple
benevolent allowance bestowed by the employer. Second, the analogy illustrates my point fairly well. We can deny funds for a movie we do not
approve of, or we can teach our children to make good choices on their
own. Third, it is like the Church
does not believe in the power of its argument. If the child (employee) cannot or does not make good
choices, then perhaps I failed as a parent to instill proper values in my
child. Just because a service may
be available, there is no requirement or obligation to use the service, like
going to an open bar event and having a soda because you don’t approve of
alcohol. Fourth, the decision to
use contraception is a very personal and private matter. Like all moral decisions, they are
between me and God, no one else.
Similarly, is freedom of religion only for organized religious entities,
or does it also cover individuals?
I
started to delve farther into the aspect, but unfortunately my words sounded
like I was attacking the Catholic Church, so I deleted the paragraph. I have no interest in attacking the
Church. The 1st Amendment Establishment Clause
is vital to the substance of this Grand Republic. Let me just ask, what is the purpose of excommunication?
Every
citizen should be protected to believe as they wish to believe, to worship
God’s greatness (by whatever name or means they choose). As I have written before, parents
should decide how they wish to teach their children. The Catholic Church’s position on sex outside
church-sanctioned, bilateral, heterosexual marriage is well understood, I do
believe. We have but to look, and
not so deeply, to see a wide variety of societal issue to see the weight of
Judeo-Christian moral dicta.
Freedom of choice seems to be an anathema to the Catholic Church and
indeed most sects of the revealed religions. I am NOT arguing against the Church’s dogma or dicta.
I
certainly recognize and acknowledge the conundrum we face. I do not want the government dictating
to religious organizations.
Conversely, I do not want the Church dictating how individuals should
live their private lives. To me,
the issue of contraception is NOT about government and religion; it is an
individual fundamental right to privacy.
Contraception is a private choice.
As I see it, the Church can and should clearly state it’s objection to
the use of any contraception – that is their protected right to do so. Yet, once again, being available for
those who choose does NOT mean the Church is “paying” for contraception. It only means the Church respects an
individual’s freedom of choice.
Because it is available does not mean any employee of the Church will
use that service; if no one uses it, there is no paying for what is not
used. The challenge for the Church
should be at the conscience level, not the paying level.
My very best
wishes to all. Take care of
yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment