Schiavo II: Misogynist Boogaloo
If denying people important medical benefits to advance religious values essentially no non-celibate Catholic believes in is the hill Republicans want to die on, they can go right ahead.
As several commenters have said, reading the Corner yesterday was immensely entertaining, and I have to agree that McCarthy takes the prize. Shorter the Nutty Prosecutor: giving the bishops the vaguely attractive-sounding thing they claimed to want rather than the exceptionally unpopular and ugly thing they actually wanted is fraud. No, actual legal fraud. I am not a crackpot.
Meanwhile, Serious Intellectuals Mary Ann Glendon and Bobby George would like to inform you that this is a Solemn Violation of Ad Hoc Reactionary Tautologies
Finally, Maggie Gallagher has always been a pioneer in the feeble non-arguments Lithwick memorably discussed in the piece Dave cited below. But it must be said that she gave a sharp, pithy, and accurate summary of Prop H8 earlier this week. Bipartisan comity at last!
When making the Schiavo comparison, keep in mind that in that case, as in this one, the Republicans and the mainstream media initially thought that the conservatives had a huge political winner on their side, only to discover later that they had grossly misread the public.
This is exactly what I mean. It amazes me that anyone thinks “make me pay a lot more for essential medical services based on ‘principles’ no non-celibate Catholic believes in” is going to be popular.
I think that Chris Matthews, Mark Shields, and their ilk are still living in Camelot, and can’t imagine that the political sway of the catholic clergy is less than it was in 1962.
I had forgotten that Mark Shields ever existed until I saw him fulminating about this week. Maybe they’ll bring back the Capital Gang for a special quest show about this topic.
Actually the Luthern Missouri Synod came down four square on the side of the Catholics. Strange bed fellows indeed.
While I do not know much about their theology, the Missouri Synod is (or at least was) rather notoriously conservative.
Probably not quite as conservative as the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, but, yeah, very, very conservative.
Well, yeah, but, you know . . . Lutheran.
One tiny quibble–the “mainstream media” is mostly addicted to ratings, and as such wants to overdramatize any story for maximum outrage. Of course they’re going to find overwrought Catholic middle managers instead of shrugging laypeople.
With that said, there’s much much bigger Opus Dei presence in the Village than there is in the country as a whole. It’s tough to tell whether the pearl-clutching or misogyny is more popular with Opus Dei, so any issue where they get a twofer is a shoo-in.
There are plenty of times the media avoids interesting stories with lots of dramatic conflict. What’s driving this is the economy of elite power. The Republicans are all in for this nonsense, and a decent element of the Dem establishment is convinced this is a bad issue for them, and therefore the coverage is lopsided.
Gotta love the continual flogging of the intellectually and ethically worthless natural law theology as a basis for public policy.
It’s usually bad form to dismiss an entire tradition of philosophical thinking going all the way back to Socrates (and, by extension, its implications for public policy-making), just because you happen to disagree with the way a few of its current proponents are using it.
Let’s put it this way. In its insistence on human dignity and the proper ends of human life, it’s infinitely better (when properly applied) than the vulgar utilitarianism that allowed the neocons to justify abhorrent policies such as torture and preemptive war (supposedly in pursuit of preventing terrorist attacks), and which allowed all the good little Serious Liberals to cede the ground that torture was maybe okay sometimes in a ticking-time-bomb scenario.
Speaking as a cultural anthropologist, let just state categorically that there is no such thing as “natural law.” Like all moral and legal precepts, it is a totally culture bound concept specific to a particular cultural tradtion. In other words, appeals to it are quite simply pure bullshit. If you want to justify a particular position, which may derive from that tradition, then you need to justify that position in its own right.
Do you believe in rights? That is, do you believe individual humans have inherent rights beyond which government and society may not rightly intrude without that individual’s consent? Whether the society recognizes those limits or not?
Or do individuals only have those rights that society gives them?
Well the question there is really more, what does it mean to “have” a right. If society doesn’t “give” me a right, then it what sense do I actually have it?
Short answer: you do not have it if society does not grant it to you.
Well thats what I think too but I was curious about how Joe would answer the question since he seemed to be at least raising some question with respect to your statement on natural law.
People have things that others don’t recognize all the time. You have rights as an innate part of your character and person, just as you have traits and desires.
you do not have it if society does not grant it to you.
The wrinkle here is that ‘rights’ can be used as a positive/legal/descriptive concept, but they also hold significant power and meaning as an aspirational concept (usually drawing on existing law and drawing attention to the gaps, flaws, and exclusions contained therein). Both of these ‘faces’ of rights can plausibly call upon a natural rights narrative for support and sustenance, but it’s hardly necessary. The concept of natural rights itself is, of course, either theological or incoherent (or both!).
I believe in human rights, but understand that they are derived from society and the cultural values of that society. Being a strong supporter of human rights does not necessarily entail believing that they are actually universal and eternal, only that they should be.
But to say that they should be universal and eternal, whether society treats them as such or not, is to acknowledge a power, a source of that “should,” that goes beyond society itself, and that society is rightfully inferior to.
In what way?
I believe that there are rights that people SHOULD have that are universal and eternal. The power, the source of that “should” is nothing more than my own reasoning. And events have demonstrated to me that the power of my own sweet reason is massively inferior to the power of society as a whole. It also makes no assumptions about society being “rightfully” inferior to it.
Exactly!
The word “rightly” is doing a lot of work there, joe.
As a philosophical matter, yes, I do believe that “individual humans have inherent rights beyond which government and society may not rightly intrude without that individual’s consent.”
But that means precisely dick. In a practical sense, we only have those rights that are either permitted to us by society, or that we’re strong enough to tell society to go fuck itself over and make it stick.
But I’m not talking about “in a practical sense.”
I’m talking about something beyond practical politics.
The right to a trial is superseded by AUMF and NDAA, so I think that we can safely say that rights are whatever the State says they are, for all practical purposes.
And effectively always have been.
It is clear from the principled stand devout Catholic John Boehner has taken on this issue that he has only ever had sex twice in his life. He only has two kids and we know how immoral he believes birth control. I can’t see any other legitimate conclusion!
Oh and can someone please ask Newt (a Catholic, now) how come his union with Callista is not blessed with spawn? Vasectomies are also verboten, according to doctrine.
I am also quite certain that he also opposes the death penalty and the detention of prisoners at Gitmo, which Catholic doctrine condemns.
Ok, we’ve heard from the Bishops.
But what about the Imams?
Why isn’t anyone concerned about what they think of this critical national issue?
And the Rabbis?
How about Shamans?
Don’t we need to build religious consensus?
And Scott, when it comes to “Bipartisanship,” I think you mean ‘comedy,’ not “comity.”
On second thought – scratch that. There’s nothing funny when someone like Wyden joins forces with “Privatizing” Ryan.
Personally, I’m thrilled that the cultural warriors have managed to make the last two-three weeks EXPLICITLY about denying women necessary health-care, and not about abortion. First, they opposed providing breast cancer screening to poor women through charitable efforts. Then, to seal the deal, they go after contraception provided by insurance companies. I can only hope that they provide some good television highlighting these positions; then it really might be Schiavo II.
As a liberal, can I just say that the nomination of Rick Santorum would make me very, very angry?
And it would make President Obama very, very reelected.
I’m with Joe. If there’s anything in this world that would piss of liberals more than the nomination Santorum for the presidency, I don’t know what it is, unless it’s throwing us into the briar patch under the bus.
And if there’s anything that would piss off conservatives more than an Obama landslide that makes 1964 look like a nail biter, I don’t know what it is.
You said the quiet thing loud.
This is why Dems can’t catch a political break!
Oops, was I not supposed to say that? Was Bijan Parcia referring to Brer Rabbit?
You have to imagine joe saying this in a Marvin the Martian voice…
It is rather nice that they finally inadvertently showed their hand for all to see.
This is a quote from Digby: “This fight for “conscience” exemptions has now been engaged not just on abortion or Plan B, but on all contraception going forward. And individual employers will join this fight for “religious liberty” now that the “consciences” of religious institutions have been given special moral standing to object to the law. ”
I understand that this is a win/loss political party question for many people. But I think that is short sighted.
Ever time the question of womens rights is brought up for debate in this country it sends the message that the rights of half the population are not rights at all, but rather privileges that they may or may not deserve. That can be stripped from them in the interest of respecting the religious convictions of a segment of the population that sees them as less than fully human, and another segment of the population that sees them as the means of producing human resources for corporate consumption.
Yes, that is exactly what the opponents of the administration’s ruling on contraceptive coverage did. They treated women’s rights and equality as privileges. Thankfully, the administration fought back and beat them, and secured those rights.
Surely, that’s what you meant. Surely, you weren’t referring to what the administration did to bring up the question of women’s rights – that is, to issue a ruling requiring contraceptive coverage in health plans, and then fight back against its opponents in a way that sustained that mandate – as a bad thing, merely because they motivated the opposition into a backlash.
I’ve seen the point made that the administration treated the opposition by the Bishops as a viewpoint worthy of respect and compromise with, rather than a position of laughable contempt. That has the effect of legitimating their entire side of the debate, which is bad news in the long term.
That’s something I can understand. I’m not a woman, but if I were I think I might be justifiably angry at the way those who conduct an ongoing war against my reproductive health and rights are treated as serious players, rather than vile throwbacks.
I hate to nitpick, but I believe the actual title is “Schiavo II: The Secret of the Ooze.”
Schaivo II: Who Needs Brains?
It’s actually Schiavo II: Schiavo Harder.
Not just you.
I figure this flap is sort of a good new/bad news thing. The good news is that the economy is genuinely improving. The bad news is that it’s likely Milwaukee is not the only Archdiocese with thousands of previously unreported molestation cases.
I definitely agree that it’s a good sign, but I wouldn’t consider it too huge an indicator.
The internal dynamics of the Republican primary would also seem to be a factor. Romney has never been particularly strong on culture war issues, (so it’s in the interest of various factions to try to push him to the right on that) and Santorum made his name famous by saying horrible things about homosexuals.
Santorum made his name famous by saying horrible things about homosexuals.
And Santorum’s name was made more famous by a homosexual making it say a horrible thing.
Life’s poetic.
And it brings a smile to my lips.