Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Sinnercrats?
Oh, Jody, Jody, Jody.
I had thought about posting this as a reply to your article, so that we could actually claim that someone had read and replied to the blog. But I figure that you, and everyone else could see it better here.
I should say now that I'm going to be using words like "perhaps," "maybe," and "unless" an inordinate number of times, because as my mother was fond of pointing out to me as a child, telepathic abilities are not a genetic trait in the Jweatt family. I can't claim to know your mind, so I have to hedge my bets.
In any event, the position you're taking comes dangerously close to being a Straw Man fallacy. I'm almost disappointed. To defend your position in either case, you have to make the jump from taking the recent decision of the California Supreme Court and the bill passed by the City Council of New York as laws that require an employer to extend a certain right, benefit, or protection with which the employer might not agree, to supposing that the extension of this right encompasses a movement on the part of the governmental bodies in question to encourage the "sin" embodied by the practice behind the right, benefit, or protection.
Now perhaps you suppose that the members of the Supreme Court of California (with the exception of Justice Brown) are sitting in a room cackling with glee and making merry with the following evil conspiratorial words:
Do you disagree with the California's Supreme Court that Catholic Charities is not a sufficiently religious organization to qualify for exemption from the law as it is written in that state? Fine. I can accept that.
Do you think that a similar exemption should exist for the Salvation Army in New York because of its religious character. Fine. I can accept that too.
But unless you believe that the Court's action and the NYC Council's action constitute the encouragement of a certain "vice" and not just the extension of an equal benefit or right to [perhaps] protected class, then you have some explaining to do as to how this represents a case where governmental entities are encouraging the practice of a vice among those who would not normally practice it.
Devoutly Catholic employees of Catholic Charities, or members of the Catholic Church in general, aren't going to suddenly start using contraception because the California Supreme Court says they have to be given the option. Why not? Because they're Catholic! They're not being overtly encouraged to sin by this. The practice isn't being forced on them by the Court's decision...
Heterosexual employees of the Salvation Army, or members of the Salvation Army in general, aren't going to suddenly start practicing homosexual sex because Council says that they have to extend health benefits to homosexual couples. Why not? Because they're not homosexuals! They're not being overtly encouraged to sin by this. The practice isn't being forced upon them by Council's legislation...
Unless, in either case, you believe that the overt sinful practice itself is being forced upon non-practicing people, you have some explaining to do as to how the dots connect here.
And sure, you might believe that the organizations in question are sinning by being compelled to support the practice in others. (That's still a far cry from being forced to carry out the practice, in the absence of additional information that I'm sure you'll provide.) But if you think that the only way to live a virtuous life is to not only practice virtue but also not to be placed in a position where you might have to acknowledge vice in others...well, a "virtue commune" down in Antarctica might be the way to go.
Until the next time, remember:
Don't play poker with someone who does card tricks at the table.
Comments(0) |
Oh, Jody, Jody, Jody.
I had thought about posting this as a reply to your article, so that we could actually claim that someone had read and replied to the blog. But I figure that you, and everyone else could see it better here.
I should say now that I'm going to be using words like "perhaps," "maybe," and "unless" an inordinate number of times, because as my mother was fond of pointing out to me as a child, telepathic abilities are not a genetic trait in the Jweatt family. I can't claim to know your mind, so I have to hedge my bets.
In any event, the position you're taking comes dangerously close to being a Straw Man fallacy. I'm almost disappointed. To defend your position in either case, you have to make the jump from taking the recent decision of the California Supreme Court and the bill passed by the City Council of New York as laws that require an employer to extend a certain right, benefit, or protection with which the employer might not agree, to supposing that the extension of this right encompasses a movement on the part of the governmental bodies in question to encourage the "sin" embodied by the practice behind the right, benefit, or protection.
Now perhaps you suppose that the members of the Supreme Court of California (with the exception of Justice Brown) are sitting in a room cackling with glee and making merry with the following evil conspiratorial words:
Mwa ha ha! Now those Catholics will all have to start using contraception, because we told them that Catholic Charities has to provide the benefit to some of their employees! Now on to the next step in the overthrow of morals!Or maybe you think that a conversation like this one is going on out in Culver City:
Hey, did you hear that Catholic Charities has to start providing options on contraception to its employees?
Really? Well, I think I'll go get a job with Catholic Charities, just so I can start using contraception - the fact notwithstanding that I've always leaned to being opposed to it.Similarly, perhaps you think that 43 members of the New York City Council have locked 5 dissenters out of the council chamber, so they could have a planning meeting for their branch meeting of Evil, Inc.:
Well, the Salvation Army is well taken care of. Now that we've ensured that they will have to provide the same health benefits to homosexual couples that they [presumably] already extend to heterosexual couples, they'll have no choice but to begin practicing homosexual sex! Evil is achieved!Or maybe you think that people read the news up in Elmira, and came to the following conclusion:
Wow! I need to find a homosexual partner so I can go work for the Salvation Army and get domestic partnership benefits! This despite the fact that I've never felt any predisposition to homosexual activity!Now sure, the religious organizations in question are being compelled to support behavior that they may find morally wrong. But really, that's a matter of labor law and equal protection law. I admit freely to not knowing much about either of those spheres as they apply to the civil codes of New York State and California. But if both of the governmental bodies in question determined that as a matter of law, the religious organizations in question had a duty to provide an equal benefit to a certain segment of their employees, then for those religious organizations to do otherwise constitutes illegal and actionable discrimination.
Do you disagree with the California's Supreme Court that Catholic Charities is not a sufficiently religious organization to qualify for exemption from the law as it is written in that state? Fine. I can accept that.
Do you think that a similar exemption should exist for the Salvation Army in New York because of its religious character. Fine. I can accept that too.
But unless you believe that the Court's action and the NYC Council's action constitute the encouragement of a certain "vice" and not just the extension of an equal benefit or right to [perhaps] protected class, then you have some explaining to do as to how this represents a case where governmental entities are encouraging the practice of a vice among those who would not normally practice it.
Devoutly Catholic employees of Catholic Charities, or members of the Catholic Church in general, aren't going to suddenly start using contraception because the California Supreme Court says they have to be given the option. Why not? Because they're Catholic! They're not being overtly encouraged to sin by this. The practice isn't being forced on them by the Court's decision...
Heterosexual employees of the Salvation Army, or members of the Salvation Army in general, aren't going to suddenly start practicing homosexual sex because Council says that they have to extend health benefits to homosexual couples. Why not? Because they're not homosexuals! They're not being overtly encouraged to sin by this. The practice isn't being forced upon them by Council's legislation...
Unless, in either case, you believe that the overt sinful practice itself is being forced upon non-practicing people, you have some explaining to do as to how the dots connect here.
And sure, you might believe that the organizations in question are sinning by being compelled to support the practice in others. (That's still a far cry from being forced to carry out the practice, in the absence of additional information that I'm sure you'll provide.) But if you think that the only way to live a virtuous life is to not only practice virtue but also not to be placed in a position where you might have to acknowledge vice in others...well, a "virtue commune" down in Antarctica might be the way to go.
Until the next time, remember:
Don't play poker with someone who does card tricks at the table.
Comments(0) |
