[nigel_k]

If you mix socialism with religious freedom, you cannot avoid the government having to draw arbitrary lines and decide how genuine and important various religious beliefs are. And they do that based on their ideology and how many votes they stand to gain or lose. There is just no point in complaining about the logical inconsistency of it all.

[barmar]

But if you disagree about where they draw the lines, you can rightfully complain -- that's the point of being in a democracy.

[mycroft]

This seems appropriate Warning: it's from Daily Kos, and it's totally opinion, and I'm not Catholic.

[hrothgar]

 mycroft, on 2012-February-13, 15:03, said:

This seems appropriate Warning: it's from Daily Kos, and it's totally opinion, and I'm not Catholic.

Quote

Here's Andrew Sullivan's version of the same:

They've been dominating the news, haven't they? And they are prepared to go down screaming over contraception in health insurance plans handled between patient and insurer. Letters were read recently in every parish. They planned a campaign against any compromise for months.

But ask yourself: where were they on a much more fundamental cause for Catholics: universal healthcare? Were they anything like as vocal?

Where were they when the Bush administration was practizing and authorizing the torture and abuse and robbing of human dignity of terror suspects? The Pope never obliquely mentioned these categorical evils when visiting the US and cozying up to the war criminals in the Bush administration?

Where have they been on tackling climate change - a sacred obligation for Catholics according to the Pope they follow so fanatically?

Why so utterly fixated on sex, especially the sex lives of women and gay men? Why so utterly indifferent to the whole range of public policies which Catholic orthodoxy has strong views on?

I'm not saying they have said nothing on any of these issues. On the treatment of illegal immigrants, for example, they have stood up. I am saying they have said nothing remotely compared with this outcry, and rarely used rhetoric more reminiscent of the Newt Gingrich than, say, Pope John XXIII, as they have in this case?

They have become the Pharisees. And we need Jesus.

[phil_20686]

 cherdano, on 2012-February-13, 11:10, said:

With a sentence like this, you are ending any possible discussion with non-believers. You do not need god to hold it as a self-evident truth that everyone has some unalienable rights; rights that even a democratic majority cannot be allowed to infringe upon. (Some do seem to find god quite useful in order to justify their desire to treat some minorities as unequal, however.) In fact, there does seem to be quite a lot in common between the conscience of those who base it on an educated religion, and those how base it on basic moral principles.
So a discussion involving everyone should be quite possible. But instead you want to disqualify atheists to participate in any discussion about basic rights. I will return the favor and ignore the rest of your post.

I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote:
(1) you are ending any possible discussion with non-believers....But instead you want to disqualify atheists to participate in any discussion about basic rights.

This is emphatically not true, but it is good to understand each other. Real dialogue cannot happen without understanding the position of both sides. It seems to me there are a few ways that one could go about justifying rights without invoking God, but all of them are either inconsisent, or amount to "we all just agree".

(A) Consequentialism/Utilitarianism: Its self evident that a certain minimal set of guidelines leads to a better world. So self evident that we shall assume that the vast majority of people will agree forever, and we will call these fundamental rights. The flaw here is that one can envisage situations where rights get in the way of the greatest good for the greatest number, and this justification means you can ignore human rights whenever those in power happen to think its best. If your justification allows you to bend them in the name of the greater good, then they are not properly termed rights. Further, the world is too complicated for an justification based on foreseeable consequences to be termed self evident. We are arguing about one topical example right now - does the "Right" to religious expression trump the right to equal protection or not, or is this really about either of those. I can think of at least one supreme court judgement that overturned a previous SC judgement while both claimed to be based on the constitution (which is basically just an enumeration of rights).

(B) Natural Law: One can hold, reasonably, that the laws of nature reasonably suggest some modes of behavior to be preferable. However, if you wish to argue from an is to an ought, you need some reason why the way that nature is provides a reason for us to behave that way. (SOmetimes called the naturalistic fallacy). This is one reason that Natural Law fell out of favour in the twentieth century, although its rife in the enlightenment atmosphere that arguably forms the intellectual basis of our civilisation.

© Social Contract theory: The idea that Government is (or should be) formed by people choosing to give up certain freedoms in return for certain protections. Being the suspicious and paranoid bunch that we are, we want protection not only from other nations and tribes, but also from the people in who we are investing power, and thus was born Human rights. This is I think the best and most practical of the Rights arguments for atheists, that I have seen, but it roots rights fundamentally in the thinking of a democracy. Such rights are by their nature malleable in the sense that a democratic majority has power to change the social contract, although in practice this is more difficult than it sounds except when there are clear and present dangers, since lots of people just always vote against change.

I think that if you an atheist, you must broadly subscribe to one of these three views. There seems to be no other rational ways to justify collective rights. Thus, cherdano, Passedout and hrothgar, you eidently think that something is incorrect about what I wrote above: I pose you the following challenge: Can you really provide a justification for, say, freedom of speech, that is rational, consistent, and independent of human opinion? If you cannot, it should not properly be termed a "right" except in common parlance.

(2) In fact, there does seem to be quite a lot in common between the conscience of those who base it on an educated religion, and those how base it on basic moral principles.

I emphatically agree. For one thing, we are all heirs of an intellectual tradition stretching back to the ancient Greeks. Depending where you stand on the objectivity of thought, you might even claim that we are equally constrained by the ideas we have learnt from our ancestors. However, the reality is that most people pick up their morality by copying other peoples morality. That is why there is a tendency to make allowance for the behavior of people who grew up in "troubled" backgrounds. If morality was really self evident, we would all get to the same place in short order regardless of the example set by our parents. RL is not so clear cut. Moreover, there is a clear distinction between living a moral life, and being able to justify ones morality. In the real world, just because one decides that A is the moral course of action, does not mean that an individual will do A. However, we are basically discussing the relevant virtues of two intellectual constructs as models of how one aught to behave, not two models of how people do behave in the real world. Intellectual constructs must have some degree of consistency, even though they are allowed to be frayed around the edges.

However, like it or not, we live in a society that was, until recently (some would say still is), dominated by christian principles and modes of thought. If you truly wish to claim that your moral principles are "basic" that is its own problem, as a base is by definition, something which is a pure assumption, not reached by reason, else there would be a yet more basic claim. Ultimately, every moral philosophy starts with a series of claims that are assumed to be true, and then we reason from there. There is in general much less argument about the reasoning than there is about the original assumptions. It is generally my working assumption that most people have a broadly Christian outlook, at least as far as the Golden Rule, caring for the poor etc.

I guess what I am trying to say that saying "Atheists cannot rationally justify their morality" is a completely different statement to "Atheists are immoral". The latter is obviously poppycock. The former is more complicated. I think the statement that "Atheists cannot claim morality to be more than an agreement between humans" is true. I think if you are an atheist/a materialist and are talking about "inalienable rights" as independent of some form of social contract, you are caught in a contradiction.

[phil_20686]

 mycroft, on 2012-February-13, 15:03, said:

This seems appropriate Warning: it's from Daily Kos, and it's totally opinion, and I'm not Catholic.

I think you will find that the bias is more reflective of the mainstream media. When bishops say care for the poor, its not news. Obviously at the moment its all about the HHS mandate, but they still managed to castigate the government on the jobless and the working poor, Febury 9th extract:
" ....there is a moral obligation to help protect the life and dignity of unemployed workers and their families. We also must protect those programs that help low-income workers escape poverty and raise their children in dignity.""


Picking one month randomly, and excluding internal church appointments, in June 2011 the USCCB made a number of statements:

June 1: Statement on Euthanasia.
June 15th : Statement the Peters Pence collection.
June 15th Statement on Gay marriage stuff.
June 16th: More on Euthanasia
June 20th: Statement on care of refugees, and refugee policy in the US
June 21st: Statement on caring for environment, and welcoming new emission standards.
June 28th: Statement condemning NY marriage bill.
June 30th: Statement on Human trafficking in NA, particularly mexico-Us. Calls government to do more.


Which of these statements do you imagine was reported most heavily by the MSM?


An even better measure of the Church concerns is probably papal encyclicals, and statements by the so called "Cardinals Circus", which are the committees in Rome tasked with overseeing various social issues and church administration. You can look these up on the Vatican website if you are interested in Catholic Social Justice teachings. I would argue that Catholic social justice represents the most coherent vision of the relation of man, church and the state, and our obligations to fellow man, available in any philosophy. Well worth a read if you are interested at all in that stuff. PS: Stuff like the andrew sullivan quote is just depressingly misinformed. Surpringly, a man who ignores the catholic church has no idea what the catholic church has been saying...... FYI the USCCB has been calling for universal health care consistently since 2000 or so, and from time to time even before that. You can see a llist of their recent health care statements (i.e. last ten years) at http://www.usccb.org...ty/health-care/

[Vampyr]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-13, 10:46, said:

There was the case of the elderly UK couple running a guest house who refused to rent a double room to two men, they ended up getting successfully sued, for what seems to me to be the legitimate exercise of their religion.

I am not sure I understand this. What does it have to do with their religion? I am not familiar with the laws concerning hotels and guesthouses, but I find it rather unlikely that letting a room to a gay couple means the proprietors are obliged to engage in homosexual sex.

 gordontd, on 2012-February-13, 11:50, said:

I seem to recall that they argued that it was because they were not married that they didn't want to let them the room. Presumably once the law is changed they'll be happy to have married gay couples to stay, though it strikes me as an odd line of business to be in with such views.

I am curious whether, in their original case or their appeal, they were required to demonstrate how they check on the marital status of heterosexual guests and to prove that they have done this in every case. Perhaps they were, and failed to satisfy the court. I think they might have had a leg to stand on if it was really about non-marital relations, as there is a legal distinction between married and unmarried couples. It is unfortunate that "civil partnership" has been defined as something different to marriage.

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2012-February-13, 07:10, said:

I wish that the Obama administration was willing to play some real smash mouth politics on this one.

1. The restrictions only apply to institutions that are taking Federal dollars. If you don't want to provide contraceptive services there is a very simple out

2. (Approximately) 28 states have the precise same set of restrictions at the state level. This requirement is neither new, nor controversial.

I'd like to see the Obama administration shouting this from the highest rooftops. (FWIW, I consider the whole "Hawaii Lite" compromise a ridiculous cave) On the bright side, the Catholic Bishops seem poised to reject even this compromise which is doing a pretty good job showing how extreme their demands are...

Yes, I agree. I think this is the dinstinction between Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama - when Clinton was right he did not back down.

Spinning this as a Church vs State invasion is an appeal to stupdidity by Bohner - and unfortunately, stupid won.

[mike777]

As many point out this is yet another case of competing rights.


Perhaps another way to approach is this to ask what limits does a central govt. have in telling a private insurance company what if can or cannot do?

Or are there any limits to what govt can tell a private univ or hospital if as here it receives taxpayer funds in any form?

Here we are talking about mandating birth control as legal under tax laws or equal rights.

[y66]

Obama didn't listen to liberal Catholic allies who warned him he was putting them in an untenable position. Not smart considering that 54 percent of Catholics voted for him in 2008. Clinton wouldn't have made that mistake even if he were trading in the high 70s on Intrade.

But yeah, Catholic bishops are so far out to lunch on sex and birth control and health care that when they say things like the moral measure of any health care reform proposal is whether it protects human life and dignity and offers affordable and accessible health care to all as if they were credible guardians of morality or they talk about their longstanding commitment to support universal health care when they have allied themselves with the enemies of universal health care it's hard not to puke. Excuse me.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2012-February-13, 13:00, said:

I'm not familiar with the case, but just because they made the argument in court doesn't mean that's the issue that bothered them. It just may have been the best legal principle available to them. If they have a religious object to homosexuality, they're probably just as much against married gay couples as unmarried ones. They might not even consider gay marriages to be legitimate, even though they may be legal.

I did an internet search and, choosing the first result that wasn't from a hostile paper or a gay paper, came up with this that seems to provide enough information to give a reasonable overview.

http://www.iaindale....e-of-the-rights

[kenberg]

On the gay couple and the hotel:

As I mentioned earlier, I would prefer the issue of God not arise. Suppose I own a hotel and I disapprove of some behavior. Maybe I disapprove of gay sex. Maybe I disapprove of a guy bringing two women with him. Or a woman bringing two guys, I don't want to be accused of unequal fantasizing. Or two couples who hope to all get to know each other well. Maybe I disapprove of two youngsters who have just reached the age of consent renting a room. Do I have a right to back my views by not renting them a room? Whatever the answer is, I don't see why it should matter that I append to my disapproval "I have a note from God saying that it's wrong". If I disapprove, I disapprove, whatever my reasons. If I have to suck it up and rent them the room anyway, then I have to. No reason at all to involve God in this matter.

[phil_20686]

 Vampyr, on 2012-February-13, 17:21, said:

I am not sure I understand this. What does it have to do with their religion? I am not familiar with the laws concerning hotels and guesthouses, but I find it rather unlikely that letting a room to a gay couple means the proprietors are obliged to engage in homosexual sex.

Do not be facile: providing the means for a sinful act is a lesser sin than engaging it, but it is hardly a stretch to find it morally reprehensible. If my friend wanted to kill themselves and I provided 20 bottles of asprin would I be guilt free? If I drive the trains taking people to their (unjust) execution, am I guilt free? If my underage daughter wanted to have sex and I arranged an empty house would I be guilt free? Its the same principle. If you think A is a morally bad thing, and you allow A to happen when you could prevent it, that is a Bad Thing in virtually all moral philosophies.

There is plenty of case law to suggest that you can refuse to serve people for holding opinions or behaving in a way you find morally offensive. There are restraunts that refused to serve people dressed as Nazi's, and the KKK, etc etc. Here is a novel classic: Restraunt refuses to serve TSA agents in the vicinity of Seattle airport, in protest about how they treat passengers! Here is one in a US court at the moment: Woman refused service because she is a poor tipper. Google will find you an almost endless series of these cases, virtually all upholding the right of businesses to refuse service.

UK and US law both confirm in case law that you can refuse to serve someone for almost any reason, except if it is judged to be based on "religion, colour, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation". In other words, I can refuse to serve someone for any behavior or reason that I the owner find offensive, or disturbing, or morally suspect, or believe that my guests will find as such, or even on the suspicion that they plan to engage in such behavior, except for a handful of enumerated exceptions.

We now have the issue in the UK that the two enumerated exceptions are effectively in direct opposition to each other, and religion is losing in most of these cases. I heard about a case in the US where a doctors training college is being sued for allegedly only accepting pro-choice applicants. That will be another litmus test case, as that seems a 100% clear violation of discrimination on the basis of religion.

[phil_20686]

 kenberg, on 2012-February-14, 06:59, said:

As I mentioned earlier, I would prefer the issue of God not arise. Suppose I own a hotel and I disapprove of some behavior. Maybe I disapprove of gay sex. Maybe I disapprove of a guy bringing two women with him. Or a woman bringing two guys, I don't want to be accused of unequal fantasizing. Or two couples who hope to all get to know each other well. Maybe I disapprove of two youngsters who have just reached the age of consent renting a room. Do I have a right to back my views by not renting them a room? Whatever the answer is, I don't see why it should matter that I append to my disapproval "I have a note from God saying that it's wrong". If I disapprove, I disapprove, whatever my reasons. If I have to suck it up and rent them the room anyway, then I have to. No reason at all to involve God in this matter.

I suppose I agree with this, in that I basically think you should be able to refuse service for any reason. Service is something I agree to do for a price, I don't really see why agreement to do something for someone at price A, should compel me to do the same for someone else. We would think it was a joke (I presume) to apply the same standard to prostitutes (in regions where they are legal), that having sex with A for money compels you to have sex with B for (the same) money.

I do not see how it is justifiable to be allowed to refuse service to the KKK clan members because you find their views immoral, when it is not allowed to refuse service to a homosexual couple because you find their views immoral.

[BunnyGo]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 07:21, said:

I suppose I agree with this, in that I basically think you should be able to refuse service for any reason. Service is something I agree to do for a price, I don't really see why agreement to do something for someone at price A, should compel me to do the same for someone else. We would think it was a joke (I presume) to apply the same standard to prostitutes (in regions where they are legal), that having sex with A for money compels you to have sex with B for (the same) money.

I know, that's why there are no blacks in my restaurant...I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time.

While I appreciate what you're trying to say, and definitely find something like it compelling, this has definitely been taken too far in the past (and present). It's a hard line to toe.

[Bbradley62]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 07:21, said:

I suppose I agree with this, in that I basically think you should be able to refuse service for any reason.

Welcome back to 1950s Alabama.

Edit: Damn! I knew I should have just responded instead of reading the whole thread first

[Winstonm]

Quote

Do not be facile: providing the means for a sinful act is a lesser sin than engaging it, but it is hardly a stretch to find it morally reprehensible

But what if the larger society finds the act morally proper - is it still a sinful act or is it simply a superstition?

I have no problem with the separation of church and state - and Richard nailed it above with his comment - if the Catholics do not wish to participate, then they should not take public funds.

[kenberg]

 phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 07:21, said:

I suppose I agree with this, in that I basically think you should be able to refuse service for any reason. Service is something I agree to do for a price, I don't really see why agreement to do something for someone at price A, should compel me to do the same for someone else. We would think it was a joke (I presume) to apply the same standard to prostitutes (in regions where they are legal), that having sex with A for money compels you to have sex with B for (the same) money.

I do not see how it is justifiable to be allowed to refuse service to the KKK clan members because you find their views immoral, when it is not allowed to refuse service to a homosexual couple because you find their views immoral.

Actually I was not arguing whether I should or should not be allowed to refuse them a room. I was arguing that whether or not I should be allowed to do so should not depend on whether or not I pray while doing it.

I'm bowing out. Nothing good ever comes out of these religious discussions.

[Bbradley62]

 kenberg, on 2012-February-13, 10:08, said:

I doubt it. I guess you could give them a call and ask for your free condoms and see what they say.

Every doctor's office I've ever been to (as an adult) gives out free condoms. Of course, as Mary Jo Shively said "it's not about preventing births; it's about preventing deaths".

[phil_20686]

 Winstonm, on 2012-February-14, 08:16, said:

But what if the larger society finds the act morally proper - is it still a sinful act or is it simply a superstition?

The whole purpose of freedom of religion is to protect the fact that people do not agree. The collolary is that if everyone always agreed no laws would be necessary. The more important the law, the bigger the disagreement,

I mean we have been through the tired old loop of "there was a time when slavery was considered morally proper" - was it still sinful or mere superstition to think it was immoral? There is a tendency among those with a liberal bias to assume that todays morality is "obviously" an improvement on what happened before, and use it to invalidate this type of action. Whatever way you look at it, using societies current measure of morality on a historical basis takes you to a very strange place, and there is no reason at all to presume we have reached the high point of moral reasoning. I can envisage a time in the future when people look at arguments based on the once legality of abortion in the way you roll your eyes when I point out slavery was once legal.

It is for this very reason that the federal dollars argument of hrothgar is spurious: If you refuse to give federal dollars to a group for no other reason than its religious affiliation, which is basically what you are suggesting, then the federal government would be engaged in discrimination. No one is suggesting that Catholic Hospitals provide worse trauma care, for example, so they cannot be excluded from federal funds for trauma care without violating the equal protection clause.

I suppose they could plausibly be excluded for funds on "womans health issues" on the grounds that their religious affiliation directly interferes with the aims of the federal government spending.