Men in Black

[paft.livejournal.com]

Here is a picture from today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about the Obama administration's birth control mandate:



The first row are the allowed witnesses.

All those people a couple rows behind them? Well... those witnesses just don't fit in.

That's why most of the Democratic women on the committee walked out of the room.

Just now, Oklahoma GOP representative Jim Lankford implied that these men in black were being "berated" by the committee. In fact, they've mostly been getting strokes just short of full-body massages from most of the remaining committee members. This hearing is such a transparent and over-the-top, right wing extremist attack on the administration (one Representative invoked those dastardly laws against smoking in public buildings as a sign of the slippery slope the administration has set up) that clips from it should be used by Democrats in the upcoming election.

I cannot imagine any reasonable and honest person watching this hearing and not being appalled.


Partially crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

*

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

It's not up to us to buy it, but only up to us to respect such a belief.

But that has no end, given the arbitrary and unverifiable source of moral authority in religious traditions. I mean, what is the real difference between this and the Kopimist church, which holds that the free dissemination of copyrighted material is a holy act? The only difference I see is that in one case, the moral objection predated the law mandating (allegedly) morally inconsistent action, and in the other, it did not. That is, Kopimism came about in a world where copyright exists, and the contraceptive stance came about where no contraceptive mandate existed. Does this render either belief necessarily less valid? I don't think so. I think you'd have to go to external criticisms of Kopimist motives to attack the validity of their beliefs, because in general, there is no absolute criteria by which one can judge religious validity. Should we be required to respect Kopimist views on the sharing of copyrighted material as part of respecting their free exercise?

ETA: To expand more generally: I don't believe that allowing free exercise means allowing any moral objection. So long as you yourself are not acting directly to violate your own morals, I don't see how this interferes with your free exercise. How does the compromise (in which the insurance coverage is provided independently, free of charge to the Catholic or religious institution) fail to respect free exercise?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Should we be required to respect Kopimist views on the sharing of copyrighted material as part of respecting their free exercise?

I think we need to use some common sense and recognize legitimate religious practices as opposed to clear attempts to make a point.

With that said, much like no one has a right to other people buying them contraception, so too can the Kopimists copy their own information freely without infringing on the rights of others, nor do others having the right to control their information infringe on the rights of the Kopimists.

How does the compromise (in which the insurance coverage is provided independently, free of charge to the Catholic or religious institution) fail to respect free exercise?

It's still the religious institutions subsidizing contraception directly. Saying "oh, the insurers are paying for it" assumes that the religious, and those of us who understand their protest, are amazingly stupid. It's easily the most offensive, cynical thing this President has done over his term.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I think we need to use some common sense and recognize legitimate religious practices as opposed to clear attempts to make a point.

Again, how do you discriminate between the two in any way that's internally consistent? I mean, I understand that "common sense"-wise, this is pretty obviously a church-as-political commentary. And? Does a church that exists for purposes of political commentary immediately give up any claims to credible holy inspiration? If so, on what grounds? It's certainly not impossible for a god to make a political point or even to be primarily political in his interests, is it? By what means do we distinguish sincere religious beliefs from those that are, as you allege here, not worthy of protection because they are apparently insincere?

With that said, much like no one has a right to other people buying them contraception, so too can the Kopimists copy their own information freely without infringing on the rights of others, nor do others having the right to control their information infringe on the rights of the Kopimists.

Fair enough. I'm sure there's a better example I can think of. Maybe Rastafarians with weed? But I'd wager given your other positions that you'd be OK with that, so it's hardly illustrative. I have this overwhelming need to argue by appropriate analogy, and it fails me sometimes because I always fail to forget that analogies are infinitely distinguishable. It comes down to this, though: we subsidize immoral things all the time, in hundreds of ways, all of them mandated by government. Somehow, though, the obedience to a law with which we disagree, that is only problematic if others take actions with which we disagree, is a pressing moral issue for me? It just doesn't hold water. We've got two actions of independent agency between me and the immoral act, maybe more, and yet still they're my moral responsibility.

You said that if this was about banning contraception, it'd be one thing, but it's not. I think that depends on who you ask. Certainly it might not be for the Republicans, but let's ask this: would Catholic bishops, given political power, ban the sale and use of artificial contraception? I'm trying to find out if they're banned in the Vatican's territorial grant, since that's the only modern state (well, as much as it fits that definition) with Catholic holy oversight, but it's proving difficult because Google likes canon law, which I'm not certain governs within the city. I'll let you know what I find out. Still, I'd find it interesting if merely allowing the practice was seen as immoral by Catholic bishops. That it extends that far (and honestly, I still think there's no justifiable moral difference between paying you, knowing you'll get contraceptives, and paying an insurance company who provides them to you if you ask) I may ask someone at school if they know what the deal is there.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Again, how do you discriminate between the two in any way that's internally consistent?

Good question. Catholicism has roughly 2000 years behind it, give or take, compared with a few months for Kopimism, really. Context is key here, and I hesitate to go with an "I'll know it when I see it," but...

Somehow, though, the obedience to a law with which we disagree, that is only problematic if others take actions with which we disagree, is a pressing moral issue for me? It just doesn't hold water. We've got two actions of independent agency between me and the immoral act, maybe more, and yet still they're my moral responsibility.

That's fair, which is why I think there's a difference between this and, say, the Quakers paying for the war. I don't think the Catholics have a leg to stand on if they want government-sponsored care to stop covering contraceptives, because that's for everyone and paid in by everyone. When they're the primary purchaser of insurance, the government really shouldn't be involved with that transaction.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Traditional Scandinavian practices have as long if not more than that. Is hanging people up upon the tree a legitimate religious practice?

Voudoun comes from faiths even older than Catholicism, yet is arguably only a few hundred years old. So more than Scientology, less than Christianity. Where does animal sacrifice fall in your scale of legitimate practices?