Political philosophy

[Count Comfect]

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.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You have the freedom to not do what you think is wrong provided that it does not infringe my right to do something.

The implication being that I must violate my conscience, if you consider the lack of violation to infringe upon your rights?

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.

I disagree. To say so indicates that human rights stem from the State, which seems wrong. I don't think human rights stem from any sort of artificial societal construct, but from a certain dignity inherent to all men.

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.

Rights imply duties on others, whether or not those others find those duties distasteful or repugnant.

It's not a matter of finding them distasteful or repugnant. It is a matter of believing that it is morally unacceptable to fulfill these "duties".

And I disagree that a right implies duties to others. It simply implies what it means, a right.

There is no right to not allow another's rights.

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.

I don't see why. I don't believe they should not be required to do so because of any sort of ecclesiastic status or lack thereof, but because I believe the conscience to be inviolable; their affiliation with the Church merely indicates adherence to a certain view of morality.

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.

[Count Comfect]

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.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

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.

You absolutely do NOT consider it to be a fundamental right. You consider it, at best, to be a pleasant luxury. If you considered it to be a fundamental right, you would not make it the least important of rights, and one which can apparently be trumped by every other right, since you say this right is absolutely NEGATED the moment their conscience conflicts with "other rights", indicating that any right at all can trump the right to not commit moral suicide. That does NOT sound like a "fundamental right" to me.

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.

[Count Comfect]

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.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

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.

Why is it that A does not have rights, but B does? Whether A is compelled to violate A's conscience or not, one of them will be infringing upon the others rights, A by not fulfilling B's, and B by negating A's right to follow A's conscience. The difference lies in the fact that B would NOT be forced to act in a way B considered immoral, whereas A would. And thus, since immorality is the soup of the day in the modern, we obviously must opt for the choice which involves the violation of A's conscience.

[/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.

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.

I'm not certain you quite understand the intricacies of this case. Linkage to the contraceptive bills to which Catholic Charities was forced to comply follows:

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:

Originally Posted by CC

laws can also be made without concern for rights - the way to distinguish is the explicit reference to rights.

Since then, there are no explicit references to rights, this does not in any way establish anything as a right, following your own words.

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:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, it's not acceptable for Congress to prohibit the free exercise of religion, but it is for the California Supreme Court? I think not.

Seriously, I have yet to see a situation where the only options are A) Moral suicide or B) Violate someone else's rights.

Darn straight, because when the state did force it, there were rights involved.

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."

And it is NOT the State-as-State that makes the decision on rights; it is the State-as-People.

But would not the best determination of popular will be a democratic vote, rather than the ruling of seven judges?

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.

Then why not by vote?

In the present system, the State serves as a fairly accurate exemplar of this determination.

It most definitely does not. Compare the state's decisions to opinion polls.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Like so?

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4610_0_2_0_C/



To compound this tragedy, the Bush Administration has continued the misguided Clinton policy on Kosovo.

Let's remember that Clinton ordered U.S. military intervention in the Balkans against the Christian Serbs on the grounds that "ethnic cleansing" and even "genocide" were being waged against Serbia's neighbors. Most of that was hokum. Serbia, a U.S. ally in World War II, was being ruled by the communist Slobodan Milosevic, who was desperate to hold on to power in the former Yugoslavia, which included Serbia. While Milosevic was a problem, the Clinton "solution" made the problem worse. Clinton gave the green light to military aggression against the Serbs and even ordered the CIA to provide support to the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was allied with Osama bin Laden and radical Islamists. The U.S. bombed Serbia and forced Milosevic, who was later turned over to a U.N. court, to capitulate. Milosevic recently died in a U.N. prison.

Kosovo, like the American southwest, has been deluged by outsiders, who now want political power. In Kosovo they are Albanian Muslims, many of them illegal aliens from neighboring Albania. They want, with U.S. and U.N. support, to turn Kosovo into an independent Muslim state. The Bush Administration should stop-not accelerate-this madness.

If the Albanian Muslims succeed in taking over a province of Serbia, with U.S. and U.N. support, and establishing their own independent and sovereign state, then why should Mexicans balk at taking over the U.S. southwest? They must figure, with good reason, that the U.N. can be counted on to help them.

The cover-up of the persecution of Christians in Kosovo is another scandal for the media. It shows that when they agree with the Bush foreign policy, which in this case involves the establishment of a Muslim state in Europe and is a continuation of the Clinton foreign policy, they will utter NOT one word of criticism.

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh, and you haven't read Ann Coulters' GODLESS yet, have you? Well, neither have I. Mine's on the way from B&N, though, and I look forward to it.

Massacres? Rape Camps? Hey, it's okay if you're Christian!

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Why is it that A does not have rights, but B does? Whether A is compelled to violate A's conscience or not, one of them will be infringing upon the others rights, A by not fulfilling B's, and B by negating A's right to follow A's conscience. The difference lies in the fact that B would NOT be forced to act in a way B considered immoral, whereas A would. And thus, since immorality is the soup of the day in the modern, we obviously must opt for the choice which involves the violation of A's conscience.

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.

So... by your logic, INSTEAD, we should have your so-called "Freedom of Conscience" make all other rights non-existent, because if I say I believe (the truth of which no one else can know) I should not have to do the duty inherent to someone's right, I can just deny it.

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.

I'm not certain you quite understand the intricacies of this case. Linkage to the contraceptive bills to which Catholic Charities was forced to comply[...]
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."
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?

In reverse order: a) It is not the state's job to hold them to their Scriptures. Church and State are and should be separate.
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.

I wonder if it is time to bring in a little thing called the First Amendment

There is no indication anywhere in our history or in the text that "free exercise" of religion means you can interfere with other people's rights. Or should we be allowing Aztec human sacrifice.

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."

The right involved is the right to be treated equally; that homosexuals and heterosexuals have to both be allowed to adopt if one is allowed to adopt. It is not a "right to adoption" or that more specific right you say. The right Massachusetts established was a right to be treated the same, and that was clearly being violated.

But would not the best determination of popular will be a democratic vote, rather than the ruling of seven judges?

There was a vote, that established the law. The judges then did what judges do, and decided a case that came under the law. That's the way it should work; we shouldn't be ancient Athens, where every trial had to be decided by a vote of 500 randomly selected citizens.

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.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

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.

[GreyMouser]

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?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

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.