06-12-2006, 06:47 PM | #201 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
You have the freedom to not do what you think is wrong provided that it does not infringe my right to do something. I will not say if I agree or disagree with the State of California in its determination that employees have a right to be supplied with contraceptives, but given that that is the determination of the State, in its role as representative of the people, that is a right in the context of action within the State of California. Rights imply duties on others, whether or not those others find those duties distasteful or repugnant. There is no right to not allow another's rights. We may disagree about whether the right to free contraception from one's employer IS a right, but if it is one, as California holds it is, then you must do your duty with respect to it. It is not a right "to contraception" - in that case your statement about Planned Parenthood is indeed correct. It is a right, according to state law, to FREE contraception that must be provided by the EMPLOYER. That is the right in question.
As Catholic Charities are an organization affiliated with the Church, not the Church itself, all the more reason they should have to abide by State law.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. Last edited by Count Comfect : 06-12-2006 at 06:48 PM. |
06-12-2006, 08:47 PM | #202 | |||||
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
Quote:
If human rights do stem from the State, then there are no rights without the State saying so (and there are no rights in an anarchy), so that, if the state were to decide that, for instance, parents had the right to kill their children as long as they lived at home (not that I find that at all likely, but merely attempting to illustrate the implications of the principle), then I would have no right to do anything to prevent you from doing so. Laws are only a tool; morality is the end, the higher thing towards which it is ordered, so that morality, being higher, cannot take second place to the tool ordered towards it. The painting is more important than the brush. Or, by the account of some, protection is the end towards which it is ordered. But again, if one believes that abortifacients end an innocent life, then as far as that one is concerned, law has failed in this respect, and if it tries to actually force one to do something which they believe is contrary to a fundamental human right, namely the right to life. But certainly, law is not an end to pursue for its own purpose. Quote:
And I disagree that a right implies duties to others. It simply implies what it means, a right. Quote:
Quote:
I'm not just arguing for Catholics, or anything. If a state mandated that grocery stores sell alcohol, I would absolutely support the right of Muslim grocers to not do so. I simply consider the freedom to not violate one's conscience to be absolutely an inalienable right, the negation of which is a supreme perversion of free will, and destruction of what is simply THE most important right.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle Last edited by Gwaimir Windgem : 06-12-2006 at 08:49 PM. |
|||||
06-12-2006, 08:59 PM | #203 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
And I disagree. I feel that if we take human rights to be something ethereal, involving the "dignity inherent to man," we can never agree on rights, and we will be left screaming at each other over what rights we have and don't have. I feel that the only way to try to avoid this impasse is to accept a communal definition of what rights are had and not had - and the best way we can do this is through the same methods as we govern a representative state. It is for this reason that I take laws as establishing rights; not because the State has some absolute power to make or break right, but because the State's expressed values are the best guide we have to the collective will of the people, and that is in turn the definition of right we must use.
This means in turn that, no, you do not have to "violate your conscience" as you put it on my personal say-so. I'm saying that because WE as a people have established a right, your conscience does not exempt you from the duties inherent to that right. A right does imply duties - or else what value has a right, if others can violate it at will? What value has my right to, say, free speech, if you can walk up and put duct tape on my mouth? You say that you find the "freedom to not violate one's conscience to be absolutely an inalienable right." I disagree. It IS, certainly, a fundamental right. But by the same logic as your "if you consider the lack of violation to infringe upon your rights," if you consider your conscience to mean that I don't get my rights, why should that be valued more highly than my rights? I feel that the freedom not to violate one's conscience extends EXACTLY as far as it does not infringe on other rights. That's a pretty huge range, if you think about it. EDIT: I realize that my above opinion naturally raises the question of whether a law can violate a right. And I believe it can. Although the law establishes rights, laws can also be made without concern for rights - the way to distinguish is the explicit reference to rights. If we have a law that says I have a right to free speech, and then a law is passed not explicitly referring to this right that infringes it nonetheless, it is then that I feel a right has been violated by law. Just to (hopefully) clear up that point before it comes up.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. Last edited by Count Comfect : 06-12-2006 at 09:04 PM. |
06-13-2006, 12:29 PM | #204 | |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
And again, we are not talking about person A negating person B's rights. We are merely talking about A abstaining from aiding B in achieving his rights, when it violates A's conscience to do so. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this? Which is more important: What the State may say at any moment, or the Conscience? And I am not concerned with making it easy for us to determine and agree what are human rights; I am concerned with what is the source from which they absolutely proceed, and it is not the state. If it were, the rights of blacks and women were practically non-existent a couple hundred years ago.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle Last edited by Gwaimir Windgem : 06-13-2006 at 12:31 PM. |
|
06-13-2006, 01:46 PM | #205 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
A may only be compelled to violate his or her conscience when such violation is necessary for the existence of B's rights; it is not just "aiding in achieving," it is when it is necessary. It is the case where A refusing to aid B DOES negate B's right. In all other cases, the right to conscience does indeed trump the other right. If there are reasonable alternatives to A's aid to achieve the right, A cannot be compelled - this is what is fundamental. This is why I made the distinction as to what the right involved in the contraception case is - it is not a right "to contraception" but a right to "free contraception from one's employer." Different rights, different duties.
"Any right at all can trump the right not to commit moral suicide." When our other option is "Someone's claim of conscience trumps all my rights," I'll take the former. Seriously, I have yet to see a situation where the only options are A) Moral suicide or B) Violate someone else's rights. In the Catholic Charities example in Massachusetts, for instance, they took option C) Neither, by neither violating the rights of homosexuals nor committing moral suicide. They stopped offering their adoption services. I should probably point out here that I feel the State has no role in morality; what you feel is moral or amoral is not a State concern. And it is NOT the State-as-State that makes the decision on rights; it is the State-as-People. When women and minorities were not represented, the State did NOT speak for the People, and thus State Law did not reflect their rights. Rights proceed, in my view, as I have said, from the collective determination of the people. In the present system, the State serves as a fairly accurate exemplar of this determination. And some of my reasoning does indeed derive from practicality - because we will never get anywhere arguing about abstract rights. EDIT: Of course, since we do seem to BE arguing about abstract rights, perhaps we won't get anywhere anyway.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. Last edited by Count Comfect : 06-13-2006 at 01:49 PM. |
06-14-2006, 09:25 PM | #206 | |||||||||
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
[/quote]It is the case where A refusing to aid B DOES negate B's right. In all other cases, the right to conscience does indeed trump the other right. If there are reasonable alternatives to A's aid to achieve the right, A cannot be compelled - this is what is fundamental.[/quote] But whether you try to find another alternative or not, when push comes to shove EVERY OTHER RIGHT trumps the right to freedom of conscience, and thus is the least of the rights. Quote:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/..._chaptered.pdf http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/..._chaptered.pdf Note that the ONLY time in either text that the word "right" is used is when it says, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to deny or restrict in any way any existing right or benefit provided under law or by contract." Therefore, it is not establishing right to contraceptives paid for by the employer as a right. For by your own definition: Quote:
What the California court did is to declare that CC is not a "religious employer", because it provides secular services and does not overtly evangelize. So, apparently, to be "religious" by the California courts standards, all you can do is pray for people and tell them that Jesus (or perhaps JAAAAAYZUS) will take of all their problems. That, my friend, is utter foolishness. Note what James 1:27 says: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Now, don't you think that bodies which identify with a Christian religion should be held to no higher standard than that of their own Scriptures? I wonder if it is time to bring in a little thing called the First Amendment: Quote:
Quote:
In the Catholic Charities example in Massachusetts, for instance, they took option C) Neither, by neither violating the rights of homosexuals nor committing moral suicide. They stopped offering their adoption services.[/quote] 1) Adoption is not a right. 2) Even if it were, assuming that CC had continued to offer adoption services, but not to homosexuals, it would not be a violation of rights, merely refraining from fulfilling them. Unless, of course, you are going to say that there is a "right to adoption through services affiliated with a church which does not approve of same-sex unions." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle Last edited by Gwaimir Windgem : 06-14-2006 at 09:31 PM. |
|||||||||
06-15-2006, 02:21 PM | #207 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 301
|
Quote:
|
|
06-15-2006, 04:28 PM | #208 | |||||
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Quote:
Yes, I think freedom of conscience has to come after other rights, because putting it before them too easily leads to the extinction of the others. Freedom of conscience is still a right, but you can't invoke it to eliminate others' rights. Quote:
b) They aren't a religious organization under that definition; the court was right. They don't only serve Catholics, and they don't proselytize. They do identify with the Catholic Church, but self-identification is not a good basis to rule on. c) I admit I didn't know the details of the case, but now that I have read the laws, I think this law is actually off our topic, in that there IS a religious exemption. It's just that the Catholic Charities don't fit it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I should additionally point out that what I mean by the collective opinion of rights is what rights the collective body thinks it itself has. That is, I feel what is most fundamental is that all people are equal. It then becomes an issue of what rights everyone has - you can't say "blacks don't have X right" or "gays don't have X right," because everyone has the same rights. The question becomes what those rights are, not what rights each group specifically has.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
|||||
06-17-2006, 02:28 PM | #209 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
You know, I'm not going to continue this discussion. For me, the right to freedom of conscience is just too fundamental for me to even understand someone really and seriously saying that you don't have a right to it (which is essentially what you are saying; it's a luxury that can be enjoyed sometimes, but it is absolutely relative [funny phrase, that]). I just cannot wrap my mind around the State-God you seem to be proposing, which is the final arbiter of morality, from which human rights, and which has the right to mandate that you do something that you believe is wrong. I just can't truly comprehend how someone could hold this; it requires a mindframe which is altogether alien to me, and I see no point in continuing this.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
06-19-2006, 11:40 AM | #210 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 301
|
Couple of questions:
Should an agency affiliated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but operating under state laws, be allowed to refuse to pay for blood transfusions for its employees? Should an agency affiliated with the Christian Scientists, but operating under state law, be allowed to refuse to pay for medicine for its employees? How about Christian Services in Mississippi? Should they be allowed to refuse adoptions to Catholics? |
06-19-2006, 08:22 PM | #211 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
1) Yes.
2) As I understand it, CS doctrine is not that medicine is sinful or wrong, but simply that it's not effective or not the best way, so it's not a question of morality. 3) Since that is what the local branch does, contrary to their national policy. There should be some uniform policy, as this is a national organization. If they decided that that uniform policy would be to discriminate against Catholics, then yes.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
State Funding of Political Parties | The Gaffer | General Messages | 15 | 09-06-2006 10:49 AM |
Philosophy | Millane | General Messages | 321 | 05-07-2006 05:29 PM |
Polictical Correctness | afro-elf | General Messages | 392 | 12-23-2004 12:15 PM |
Nation States - The Great Continent of Entmoot | jerseydevil | Entmoot Archive | 323 | 06-17-2004 11:27 AM |
The ban on political discussion is lifted | Sister Golden Hair | General Messages | 0 | 06-16-2004 03:26 PM |