Supreme Court Ruling For RC 'Little Sisters' Marks More Religious Hegemony - Not Liberty.

'Little Sisters of the Poor'  jubilant after  an earlier anti-birth control SC ruling.  Following the July 8th ruling they have to be delirious.  (Below)

Who would have believed three and a half years ago that a confirmed 'pussy grabber' would be elected president, aided in no small part by religious fanatics and hypocrites?  And then - once in dubious power- fight like a rabid rat to take away women's reproductive rights?  Well, I did and Janice as well.   This slimeball has - along with his  foolish religious supporters - sought to not only undermine abortion rights,  but to eliminate the contraceptive  provisions under the Affordable Care Act. 

They reached their full influence in the July 8th Supreme Court ruling  (Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Pennsylvania) when any employer (not just religious) who objects to providing contraceptives under the ACA mandate can just blow it off .  This followed the pussy grabber's efforts over 2017, 2018 to expand exemptions for any employers with "good faith" objections.   Well, Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued calling it an "abuse of discretion".  In fact, it was much more: a veritable power play to increase religious hegemony and largely at the expense of poor and minority women. 

Recall back in September of 2012 how women's activist Sandra Fluke warned what would befall American women if such reproductive rights were taken away.   In a stirring speech  at the Democratic National Convention, Ms. Fluke warned of a potential  authoritarian future: 

"Warnings of that future are not distractions. They’re not imagined. That future could be real.  In that America, your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs. Who won’t stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party."

Remember this was in Sept. 2012 or four years before Trump the demagogue was shoe horned into power with the help of the Russkies.

As Sandra went on:

"It would be an America in which you have a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms. An America in which states humiliate women by forcing us to endure invasive ultrasounds we don’t want and our doctors say we don’t need. An America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it; in which politicians redefine rape so survivors are victimized all over again; in which someone decides which domestic violence victims deserve help, and which don’t. We know what this America would look like. In a few short months, it’s the America we could be. But it’s not the America we should be. It’s not who we are."

Thanks to Trump and his enablers, and now the Supremes, this is where we are heading. Of course, the primary reactionary organ of  capitalist finance (The Wall Street Journal) was elated with the ruling -  fairly drooling in an op -ed ('Religious Liberty Lives At The High Court',   July 9, p. A14)  -  that it was a "victory, though a narrow one"  for religious liberty.  No, it was a narrow victory for religious hegemony and don't buy for a second the WSJ's nabobs are the least interested in religious liberty. No, it's all about the unfettered reproduction of more consumers to spend, spend, spend and prop up stocks and future bull markets.

 What we do know is that if this religious hegemony is allowed to expand (say after a Trump re-election) - it would see all American women in the same sad, servile position as the  women in 'The Handmaid's Tale'.      This is why all affected women - especially of child bearing age- need to vote for Biden in November, even if they must crawl over broken glass to do so.  That's how serious this is.

Meanwhile, in the dissenting opinion,  Justice Ruth Bader -Ginsburg wrote that the majority was now forcing women to pay the cost of their employers' religious beliefs, adding (WSJ, July 9, p.A1):

"For the first time the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights  to the nth degree.'"

Noting that Congress had already (by passage of the ACA) set the stage for women to have ready access to contraceptives and other preventative measures that "safeguard their health and allow them to chart their own life's course."

But Trump the traitor and pussy grabber wants none of that. As the male chauvinist authoritarian psycho he is, he wants American women to remain barefoot and pregnant and with only his authoritarian stooges  (like his personal AG, William Barr)  charting their life's courses.

As for the Little Sisters, I already - in previous posts - had tried to educate them on why their case was wrong, and that they should not be trying to prevent contraceptive services (via Obamacare) especially for their secular employees.  As I noted in my November 17, 2015 post:

"the only thing being “taken away” here is the Church employer’s ability to take away secular employees’ rights to the same standard of health care as all other secular employees’ in the public or private sphere.  The Church, meanwhile, is quite free to morally legislate its own members’ do’s and don’ts to its heart’s content. NO one is taking away that right. 

If the Church sees fit to deny its own members’ as employees access to birth control or the morning after pill, or abortion, then fine. It is well within its purview. But it can’t extrapolate that to secular employees and retain tax-free status as a peculiarly religious institution."


The tax-free aspect is critical here and a huge reason why the nuns (and their case collaborators, supporters) are wrong.  In effect, if they accept tax support from the (secular) state, they cannot then go around and deny health care benefits - in this case for contraception - for secular employees.   As a point of reference, in 2019 29 percent of all U.S. giving  ($128.17 billion) went to religious institutions - and all those dollars were tax deductible -  resulting in billions of dollars of lost federal and state tax revenue. 

More to the point, unlike nearly all other nonprofits, religious nonprofits are not required to file annual tax returns, i.e. revealing how the donations were spent.  Maybe they were partly spent on producing pamphlets to attack the ACA and its birth control mandate. Or maybe  the money went into a secret slush fund to pay the Little Sisters' lawyers. Who knows?   The point is there is no tax filing accountability.   All of us rationalist or atheist U.S. taxpayers could be subsidizing publication of religious bunkum on "natural law" for all we know.

Here's another kicker: In most cases religious institutions are exempt from paying property taxes, depriving local governments of badly needed income to provide essential services like public education, law enforcement, and fire protection.  (As reported in the Denver Post (July 12),  "studies estimate American churches own up to $800 billion in untaxed property".)

A sweet deal if you can get it!  No wonder the Little Sisters will be smiling with beatific  visages  in the wake of the Supreme Court's latest misfire. Sadly, those smiles will be lost on the poor, the Latina and African-American women,  who lack the resources to prevent further babies they cannot afford.

See Also:

Peace & Justice

Reproductive Justice Is Economic Justice

Excerpt:

Birth control is critical and a time sensitive medication that treats serious conditions and allows people to plan their futures and decide if and when to be a parent.

This ruling and resulting loss of access to contraception will not hit everyone in the same way. It is inextricably linked to economic stability and advancement, and it is one of society’s most potent tools in the fight to advance race and gender equity.

Restrictions like this target Black and Latinx people who are more likely to have low incomes and for whom basic health care has always remained out of reach because of historic and continued underinvestment in access to affordable health care. This decision will only make life harder for the very people who are keeping our economy afloat during this pandemic and fighting in the streets for the right to control their bodies and their lives.

'Little Sisters of the Poor' Need an Education In Artificial Birth Control

It appears the Little Sisters of the Poor - who run nursing homes here in Colorado and elsewhere- have now taken their case to the Supreme Court. What is this case? Evidently the goodly nuns have trouble with providing birth control (under the Obamacare mandate), even to secular employees who are not part of the Vatican's dogma axis and disavow its archaic belief system. So these nuns believe the mandate covers these secular employees as well, and  "forces them to violate their beliefs" to even sign a simple paper that would empower the Sisters' insurer to provide it. Are you kidding me? Seriously?

It seems to me the Little Sisters sorely need an education on the birth control - magisterium based doctrine - for CATHOLICS. In particular, that NO one is violating their cherished beliefs or dogmas if artificial contraception is provided to secular employees not bound to Catholic dogma.. All we are asking is for them to allow these workers to have the same health care benefits of other workers in the public domain.  It's called equal treatment under the law.

Hence, the only thing being “taken away” here is the Church employer’s ability to take away secular employees’ rights to the same standard of health care as all other secular employees’ in the public or private sphere.  The Church, meanwhile, is quite free to morally legislate its own members’ do’s and don’ts to its heart’s content. NO one is taking away that right. 

If the Church sees fit to deny its own members’ as employees access to birth control or the morning after pill, or abortion, then fine. It is well within its purview. But it can’t extrapolate that to secular employees and retain tax-free status as a peculiarly religious institution.  Here's another reason this applies: Unknown to many Catholic purists, many secular hospitals have been taken over by Catholic ones. Their original secular workers (who had benefits under those private secular hospitals ) now see them threatened or removed  because of antiquated Church dogmas invoked after the corporate takeover.

Catholic employers – whether in schools or hospitals or whatever – are quite free to set whatever moral standards they wish for their OWN Church members who are employed in such venues. What they are not free to do is to set those standards for secular employees! Not if they wish to continue to receive  tax-free status from the federal state. As for violating the First and Fifth Amendments, that’s totally preposterous: there is no proscription against freedom of speech – they can spout whatever medieval nonsense that they desire. Nor is there proscription against being a witness against oneself.

One of the ignorant First Amendment arguments usually employed is that: "No one is denying the secular women access to contraception or abortion if they want it, they just don't wish to be forced to pay for drugs that violate their religious beliefs".   

The point is the "drugs" aren't doing that because they're not being used by the Catholic women who are free to follow their own mores.  They're being used by secular workers as part of the coverage promised under the ACA  health insurance plan!  And, moreover, those drugs - such as contraceptives - may well be needed for more than birth prevention (though that ought to be important enough - given too many mouths to feed can tilt a family over to food stamps, welfare).   But as Sandra Fluke noted in her testimony in March last year: e.g. 

Contraceptives can also be used to treat ovarian cysts. If this is not done, the contraceptives denied, then an ovary may need to be surgically removed- and health care costs explode beyond what they would have been.  In addition contraception is critical to limiting severe health problems such as miscarriage or stroke (which could ensue if a woman becomes pregnant).  Moreover, once one uses contraceptives then they must be taken regularly or else they cease to work.

Thus, female employees of the Little Sisters' nursing homes could be in really serious trouble if suddenly denied their contraceptive care.

Meanwhile, the Little Sisters insist they are  not imposing their faith on anyone only trying to do God's holy will and service to others (the infirm elderly in their nursing homes) but don't wish secular laws imposed which make them violate their precepts.

As for the claim of “not imposing their faith on anyone”, I am afraid the Little Sisters need to take a semantics or logic course, preferably both.  If indeed, they’re all about preventing SECULAR employees – say atheists like me – from accessing artificial  birth control- then they are indeed imposing their faith.  Besides - what if the tables were turned? How would Catholic purists and dogmatists react if a Hindu-run corporation took over a Catholic Hospital? Would such a happenstance be called a "forced conversion" or  "violation of religious liberty"? OR - would it be considered a business transaction only? Also, if the newly merged entity produced subsidiary corporations  what religious principles would rightly apply? Catholic blowhards and those like the Little Sisters of the Poor need to think such questions through before they get all sanctimonious on us.

Now, if instead they confined their faux natural law moralism to Catholic employees only, there’d be no objection. “Imposing one’s faith” means taking away rights of secular citizens– based on invoking one’s own imagined religious principles.  In other words, extrapolating their “principles” beyond their proper moral domain to take away the rights of citizens who aren’t part of that domain other than in an employee capacity.

While we’re at it, let’s take a closer look at some consequences of these principles which they profess to hold so dear. Biologist Elizabeth A. Daugherty  has asked ('The Lessons of Zoology'. in Contraception and Holiness, p. 110):

"Why do we call secondary the ends of the sexual act which have been accorded in fullness to us, and why do we call primary the end which we share with the lower animals?"

She's referring to the fact that the core of Pius XI's  original encyclical Casti Connubii was that the "sin" of artificial contraception inhered in making primary a sexual aspect that in reality is only "secondary". According to that esteemed pontiff:

"Since therefore the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature."

 
Which is irredeemable codswallop. As Daugherty notes in her chapter (op. cit.)  what the pontiff and his ilk really sought to do is reduce humans to the state of lower animals, at the behest of their "natural" reproductive cycles. In this sense, unlike the lower animals, humans have the intellectual capacity and sense of novelty to introduce a vast variety of pleasure-play into their sex relations. They aren't yoked to  primitive instincts to simply mount and hump at specific times. As Daugherty notes (pp. 96- 97):

"After ovulation, all mammalian females are under the influence of progesterone from the corpus luteum. This is a period of rapidly declining estrogenic activity which ends the sexual receptivity of the lower mammalian female, whether or not fertilization occurs.

But (in humans) marital relations continue during this progesterone -dominated period before the abrupt onset of menstruation. It is the period of lowest estrogenic activity and the progesterone-dominated period after ovulation which are known as the 'safe period' for marital relations."

This then, is what the Catholics'  “rhythm method” (of  Ogino-Kaus)  seeks to do: establish the "safe period" for a particular woman and then ordain that this is the time to safely have sexual relations if one wishes to not have any kids. The trouble is, it requires meticulous temperature taking at various times during a cycle to establish where that safe period begins and ends, and often this will be for no more than 10 days or so in a given month. Presumably, the couple is quite happy to do without sex the other two thirds of the time!

Thus, the moralizers of the Vatican and their moral accomplices (such as these Little Sisters)  are actually demanding that married couples act UNNATURALLY, since as Daugherty observes (ibid.):

"Humans are free from physiologically determined sexual desires so we possess a more or less permanent sexuality from adolescence to old age."

Indeed! But the Church and its robed minions (and now evidently younger acolytes in colleges)  seek to dictate that despite being sexual or having sexual desires from adolescence until old age, her members are only free to discharge those desires under certain limited times and limited conditions. For example, teens who have such exploding desires on account of their hormones are warned they cannot even masturbate to relieve themselves because those organs are only allowed to morally function in the state of marriage. Then....once married, the couple is informed they may gratify their mutual sexual desires only if they are open to conception....that is, unless they use the rhythm method.  Anyone not see a pattern here?

But once more, my gripe is not so much the Vatican roping  in its own flock’s gonads, but seeking to rope in the gonads of secular employees working at their schools, hospitals etc. (And please don’t anyone tell me “They can get another job!” – NO, not in this low aggregate demand, high unemployment environment. That’s like telling a guy who’s been denied food stamps (and on his last legs)  to go jump off a roof, then he won’t need them!) Besides, would Catholics tell Catholic employees to just "get another job" if their hospital was taken over by Hindu owners? I doubt it!

Julian Pleasants has observed (op. cit., p. 88) the Vatican has always been hostage to:

"Aristotelian modes of thought which tend to fix behaviors within very limited and fixed definitions and categories."

Thus, the Church once believed it "natural" that some men be enslaved because they were “unable to manage their own affairs”  (ibid.)So why be surprised when the same Church seeks to ordain all her members abide by a sexuality more fitting of lower primates?   However, be that as it may, we MUST express surprise (and outrage ) when the Church and its enablers like the Little Sisters seek to impose that same sexuality on secularists. That is simply unacceptable.

The abiding question for me is:  Why have these nuns not been properly educated on the matter of artificial birth control? And while we’re at it, one ought to remind them that the birth control proscription has never been stated ex Cathedra so it’s not infallible. It is proposed under the Magisterium or Teaching Office. As one honest padre once confided to me: "You are free to use your own conscience in this regard, since the teaching isn't binding."

 Perhaps the best solution to the Little Sisters'  moral dilemma is one proposed last week by a Denver Post writer: Hire only physically fit elders for the nursing homes, who no longer have need for birth control. It would solve two problems: provide jobs for seniors who are money tight and may need more, and obviate the need to continue with these court cases.

It's "win - win"!

How Can Women Protect Themselves From Being "Slut-Shamed"?

Even Sandra Fluke, a literal heroine for the rights of American women in 2012, was slut-shamed for vigorously defending accessibility to contraception via the Affordable Care Act.

The recent case of Kentucky Wildcats' fan (and actress)  Ashley Judd tweeting her opinion about an opponent  team's cheating almost instantly brought the wrath of the alpha male trolls onto her head. In response, in  tweet after tweet these scurrilous vermin hurled sexually violent epithets as well as  physical threats at her. Similar attacks on HBO Girls' star Lena Dunham forced her to take one of the most extreme steps imaginable in the age of social media frenzy: cut off her Twitter feed.

This was indeed, drastic, but for high profile women in the media it may be the only way to secure their character from attacks by internet trolls, who appear to have had a population explosion in recent years. We have also learned from various studies that women online, and especially using social media (Facebook, Twitter) are nearly four times more likely to be attacked than males. The reasons for this are still being debated and examined but one of them is surely based in not yet extending equal rights to women via the Equal Rights Amendment.  Another small part may be, as my wife put it - that women in general are the more genteel sex, and disdain conflict - whereas many males relish it - especially verbal combat. Hence, trolls more often go after the less "combative" types.

Whatever the reason, slut -shaming attacks and general vile misbehavior towards women isn't confined merely to those like Lena Dunham who have high profile TV shows - which also feature a lot of sexy scenes.  For example, we have seen the case of women's reproductive rights defender and spokesperson Sandra Fluke -who was mercilessly attacked by the likes of Rush Limbaugh back in 2012.

Ms. Fluke delivered courageous testimony on the need for contraceptive inclusion in the ACA and her words were promptly twisted by Limbaugh (and other Reich renegades, mainly at FOX) to convey the asinine notion she was pleading for sexual libertinism. Much the same happens to other women day to day who blog about similar issues, for example, or express their thoughts on Twitter or Facebook. (Tracy Clark-Flory comes to mind, and she also writes for salon.com)

Then there is the execrable, actual debasement and exploitation of young women, especially on our college campuses. We already have seen the horrendous rape statistics, and they apply across the board  - to the Ivies, as well as state universities.  But the maltreatment of women extends to college fraternities as well.

In the most recent case, the degenerates based at Penn State's Kappa Delta Rho fraternity created a special secret FB page on which they posted images of women passed out and nude at their frat house, and made it accessible to current and former members. No consent from the women was given, so it is clear that laws definitely were broken and restitution of some form needs to be made. Meanwhile, the national office has suspended the Penn State chapter for a year. We still don't know what the university itself will do but they ought to at least consider what happened to Sigma Alpha Epsilon at OU when that racist rant was shown.

Incredibly, assorted Neanderthals - excuse me - apes, have actually tried to justify or at least diminish the behavior. In the OU case, we were expected to believe the little miscreants simply went slightly ape shit after consuming "too much" alcohol. So, I guess their inner apes got control of their brains. In this case the excuse is made based on excess alcohol, or the inner ape being released under its influence. Under no circumstances were the little dears actual racists. God forbid! In their non-intoxicated state these punks were really 'salt of the earth', prejudice-free citizens.

Meanwhile, a Penn State Kappa Delta Rho  defender actually wrote in the WaPo:

"The fire of indignant, misplaced self-righteousness that looks to ruin people's lives and unjustly ruin reputations is the abuse and violation that should be at the center of discussion, not the humorous, albeit possibly misguided antics of a bunch of college kids."

WTF?! Trying to turn the transgression back on those who exposed it? So let me get this straight, these bozos posted nude images of passed out females without their consent - for the consumption and gratification of their mates - and it is the women's fault for trying to get justice?  Are you kidding me?

These characters really believe it is the women and their defenders trying to "ruin people's lives and reputations" when it is the frat turkeys themselves who have done it by their actions. Of course it is their doing and that is the meaning of personal responsibility. It is exactly parallel to what happens now when a person poses themselves in compromising ways on Facebook, then wonders why s/he was rejected for a job, position,  because an employer found her FB content.

The kid who wrote the WaPo response can bellyache all he wants but in the end what these guys did was not "misguided antics". Misguided antics refers to when we got drunk - like at Loyola, New Orleans- and pissed in a roommate's wastebasket, or filled his pillow case with shaving cream before he hit the hay.  But posting non-consensual nude photos of females in your frat house is NOT ."antics" - misguided or other. This shows how brains have been warped to believe anything goes now.

What can women do to protect themselves? The only choices - until  actual legal consequences can be enacted against these  renegades (e.g. cutting off internet accounts, job firings, banning fraternities) appear to be few:

-  Get off the Twitter feed if you tend to express controversial opinions. Take up blogging instead - which offers a format more appropriate to explaining the reasons behind your opinions.  This is a given when you're not limited to 140 characters. Blogs also afford more filters while Tweets are simply to easy for nasty retorts. This blog is moderated, for example, so I can nip any untoward comments in the bud, at my discretion - which a Twitter feed wouldn't allow.

- In the real world of 3D space, don't put yourself in environments known to be traps - such as frat houses - where alcohol flows and people will lose self-control. 

Yes, college should be a fun place, but frat houses are not the venue to choose. At any university  there are numerous clubs and activities where one is bound to find an outlet for social expression as well as fellowship. These venues are also alcohol -free so there is less chance of trouble.

Theoretically, women should feel free to be able to express their opinions, selves  in any venue they desire, whether for social media or in the real world. They should also be able to go wherever they desire and even consume alcohol if they so choose.  The problem is the male-dominated world we inhabit is not conducive to every opinion delivered in any venue or to every action undertaken without forethought of possible consequences. This doesn't mean women should be fearful about their self-expression or choices but only recognize there are limits to that freedom given the social environment we currently inhabit.

When and if our lawmakers can bestir themselves to act on behalf of women, including passing laws in their interest, then women will surely have more latitude to explore and engage the world - including virtual - without fear....including of "slut-shaming".

Rush Limbaugh Is A Bombastic Moron For Going After CBS & Steven Colbert

It's somewhat amazing to me that anyone with an I.Q. over room temperature even tunes in to Rush Limbaugh any more. This guy demeans those who call in to his foolish show, and he demeans the whole country with his babble. We'd seen it earlier - in the run-up to the 2012 elections when for three days running he viciously attacked Sandra Fluke personally,  distorting the contraception issue and finally - after women across the country (at least the ones with brains) got up in arms, offered an "apology".

Anyone with two neurons in their gray matter knew this "apology" was bollocks. I mean, any sensible person - and that includes Ms. Fluke- could tell the genuine article from grandstanding and excuses wrapped in PR. Especially as El Swinebo made his vile comments for not one, not two but THREE days running, and then blamed liberals because he "made the mistake of following their example" as opposed to his own good conscience.

The truth is that this odious, grunting porker miscreant: a) feared the exodus of no fewer than 35 major advertisers already, and b) oinked what was in his heart - which 'oink' also echoed what most of the Woman-hating GOP believe in their own heart of hearts (accounting for their tepid reactions), as well as Rush's sickening listener audience - wherever they lived (mostly in the education backward Red States - where most still believe the Duck Dynasty are real rednecks as opposed to pretenders, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-duck-dynasty-fake-rednecks-and-how.html

Now, this Blowhard of Bombast has once again gone off the rails, as we beheld him frothing at the mouth in a vid-clip played last night on Chris Hayes' ALL In  (MSNBC) show. Evidently, Limbaugh is outraged that CBS could have picked Steven Colbert (of Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report') to take up the prized 'Late Show' gig next year, since David Letterman announced he's leaving.

Anyone who's watched Letterman knew at once that his quixotic persona would be difficult to replace. The first person I had thought of, indeed, was Mr. Colbert - who in his Comedy Central gig-  portrays a Right Wing blowhard similar to Bill O'Reilly.  After O'Reilly once complained about Colbert's shtick, Steven replied:

"Mr. O'Reilly!  I DO agree with everything you say on your show even when the words don't agree with each other!"

Limbaugh, in his tirade, bellowed:

"What this hire means is a redefinition of what is ‘funny’ and a redefinition of what is comedy, and they’re blowing up the 11:30 format under the guise that the world’s changing and people don’t want the kind of comedy that Carson gave us or even Letterman.
 It’s the media planting a flag here. I think it’s maybe the media’s last stand, but it’s a declaration. There’s no  unity in this hire. They’ve hired a partisan so-called comedian to run a comedy show.”

He went on to claim the CBS was "attacking the Heartland" - whatever the hell that means - but I suppose it means that hiring a true progressive (who not long ago appeared before congress on behalf of migrant workers) was inimical to Red State interests. Of course, this is horse manure, Red state interests and welfare are in the crapper because most of them vote against their own economic interests, a condition superbly described in Thomas Frank's book, 'What's the Matter with Kansas?'  And because Red state voters keep pulling the levers for the 'pukes, it's no surprise that they never get ahead  - since the Repukes are the party of Big Business (well, to be accurate, the Dems are as well, to an extent - with their Neoliberal - pro market parasites - but not to the extent of the pukes who have the likes of the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson trying to buy elections.)

Meanwhile, another puke-loving zombot on Breitbart.com railed against Colbert as a person engaged in "political blackface" - whatever the hell that means - for impersonating a nutso Right winger on TV. Evidently, the bozos at Breitbart don't understand the concept of political satire - as Limbaugh doesn't either.

For those of us who partake of late night comedy, it will be as much fun watching the righties squirm as it will be seeing Colbert handle the Late Show with his typical talent and aplomb.

'Fellowship of Catholic University Students' (FOCUS) Is Out to Lunch on ACA

Would one of the FOCUS women rather be emulating this secular teacher at a Catholic HS, or accepting an unplanned pregnancy because of a rat bastard doing a "roofie-rape"? Inquiring minds want to know!

According to the news in yesterday’s  Denver Post (‘Suit Filed Over Birth Control’ p. 2A), a Catholic college group (FOCUS – or the Fellowship of Catholic University Students)  plans to challenge  the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act health coverage mandate on the basis of its “forcing religious employers to offer sterilization and contraceptive services, and abortion-inducing drugs for employees.”

 

Mouthpiece Mike Norton of the “Alliance Defending Freedom” (a fulsome name if ever there was one) bloviated yesterday that:

 

“Faith-based organizations should be free to live and operate according to the faith they teach and espouse.”

 

Adding:

“If the government can fine Christian ministries out of existence for keeping their faith there is no limit to what freedom they can take away.”

Of course, this is absolute nonsense. There is no attempt whatsoever to “fine Christian ministries out of existence” – only to have them adhere to the standards of all other employers in the public sphere. If then the Catholic Church operates as an employer in the public sphere – never mind it’s a religious institution – then it’s bound to adhere to public standards pertaining to the Affordable Care Act, which all other public employers at other institutions, corporations are also bound to accept.

Hence, the only thing being “taken away” here is the Church employer’s ability to take away secular employees’ rights to the same standard of health care as all other secular employees’ in the public or private sphere.  The Church, meanwhile, is quite free to morally legislate its own members’ do’s and don’ts to its heart’s content. NO one is taking away that right. 


If the Church sees fit to deny its own members’ as employees access to birth control or the morning after pill, or abortion, then fine. It is well within its purview. But it can’t extrapolate that to secular employees and retain tax-free status as a peculiarly religious institution.  Here's another reason this applies: Unknown to many Catholic purists, many secular hospitals have been taken over by Catholic ones. Their original secular workers who had benefits under those private secular hospitals now see them threatened because of antiquated Church dogmas invoked after the corporate takeover.

According to the Post (ibid.):

“The legal group filed a lawsuit in Denver district court on behalf of the Fellowship of Catholic University Students- a non-profit organization founded in 1998.”

Here's some more of the folderol in their statement(ibid.):

“The (ACA) mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.”

Which, again, is total bollocks. There is no such violation because Catholic employers – whether in schools or hospitals or whatever – are quite free to set whatever moral standards they wish for their OWN Church members who are employed in such venues. What they are not free to do is to set those standards for secular employees! Not if they wish to continue to receive  tax-free status from the federal state. As for violating the First and Fifth Amendments, that’s totally preposterous: there is no proscription against freedom of speech – they can spout whatever medieval nonsense that they desire. Nor is there proscription against being a witness against oneself.

 

One of the ignorant First Amendment arguments usually employed is that: "No one is denying the secular women access to contraception or abortion if they want it, they just don't wish to be forced to pay for drugs that violate their religious beliefs".   The point is the "drugs" aren't doing that because they're not being used by the Catholic women who are free to follow their own mores.  They're being used by secular workers as part of the coverage promised under the ACA  health insurance plan!  And, moreover, those drugs - such as contraceptives - may well be needed for more than birth prevention (though that ought to be important enough - given too many mouths to feed can tilt a family over to food stamps, welfare).   But as Sandra Fluke noted in her testimony in March last year: e.g. 

Contraceptives can be used to treat ovarian cysts. If this is not done, the contraceptives denied, then an ovary may need to be surgically removed- and health care costs explode beyond what they would have been.

Contraceptives are also key in limiting severe health problems - such as miscarriage or stroke - which could ensue if a woman becomes pregnant. Moreover, once one commences use of  contraceptives then they need to be taken regularly or they don't work - an educational point that had to be reinforced on dimwit Repukes during their 2012 'war against women'.

 

Meanwhile, we also behold this drivel from John Zimmer – FOCUS VP -  that:

“FOCUS sincere religious beliefs forbid it from providing insurance coverage that includes birth control for its employees, it says: ‘ As Catholics we do not impose our faith on anyone but propose to others the life-changing power of God’s love.”

 

But as I noted in my recent book (‘Beyond Atheism, Beyond God’), humans with their limited neural capacity aren’t in any remote position to define or know “God” since the noun (G-o-d) isn’t the same as the entity. Since the entity is supposedly “infinite” then no finite brain can comprehend it. The best it can do is forge approximate god-concepts which are relative, limited and subjective.  Hence the term “God’s love” is totally meaningless other than on a subjective level. It’s vacuous verbiage because if one can’t comprehend “God” one surely can’t comprehend any “love” derived therefrom.  And by extension one is proposing to others nothing more than one’s own ideations as internally subjective lingo.  As Philosopher Joseph Campbell put it (The Power of Myth, p. 56):

 

“ 'God’ is an ambiguous word in our language because it appears to refer to something that is known..”

 

All of which reinforces the point that when people use the word G-o-d they’re not talking or writing about an actual entity but a limited construct or ideation configured as a noun, which we call a God concept. People BELIEVE they are referencing the real entity by use of the noun but they are deluding themselves. It would be analogous to me going to a restaurant – seeing a ‘steak’ picture on the menu – then tearing the image out, consuming it and asserting I’d eaten a ‘steak’.  Any such pretense would ordinarily earn one a fast trip to the loony bin.

 

As for the claim of “not imposing their faith on anyone”, I am afraid FOCUS’ collegians need to take a semantics or logic course, preferably both.  If indeed, they’re all about preventing SECULAR employees – say atheists like me – from accessing artificial  birth control- then they are indeed imposing their faith.  Besides - what if the tables were turned? How would Catholic purists and dogmatists react if a Hindu-run corporation took over a Catholic Hospital? Would such a happenstance be called a "forced conversion" or  "violation of religious liberty"? OR - would it be considered a business transaction only? Also, if the newly merged entity produced subsidiary corporations - what religious principles would rightly apply? Catholic blowhards and tools like FOCUS need to think such questions through before they get all sanctimonious on us.

 

Now, if instead they confined their natural law moralism to Catholic employees only, there’d be no objection. “Imposing one’s faith” means taking away rights of secular citizens– based on invoking one’s own imagined religious principles.  In other words, extrapolating their “principles” beyond their proper moral domain to take away the rights of citizens who aren’t part of that domain other than in an employee capacity.

 

While we’re at it, let’s take a closer look at these principles which they profess to hold so dear. Biologist Elizabeth A. Daugherty  has asked ('The Lessons of Zoology'. in Contraception and Holiness, p. 110):

"Why do we call secondary the ends of the sexual act which have been accorded in fullness to us, and why do we call primary the end which we share with the lower animals?"

She's referring to the fact that the core of Pius XI's  original encyclical Casti Connubii was that the "sin" of artificial contraception inhered in making primary a sexual aspect that in reality is only "secondary". According to that pontiff:

"Since therefore the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature."

Which is irredeemable codswallop. As Daugherty notes in her chapter (op. cit.)  what the pontiff and his ilk really sought to do is reduce humans to the state of lower animals, at the behest of their "natural" reproductive cycles. In this sense, unlike the lower animals, humans have the intellectual capacity and sense of novelty to introduce a vast variety of pleasure-play into their sex relations. They aren't yoked to  primitive instincts to simply mount and hump at specific times. As Daugherty notes (pp. 96- 97):

"After ovulation, all mammalian females are under the influence of progesterone from the corpus luteum. This is a period of rapidly declining estrogenic activity which ends the sexual receptivity of the lower mammalian female, whether or not fertilization occurs.
 

But (in humans) marital relations continue during this progesterone -dominated period before the abrupt onset of menstruation. It is the period of lowest estrogenic activity and the progesterone-dominated period after ovulation which are known as the 'safe period' for marital relations."

This then, is what the Catholics'  “rhythm method” (of  Ogino-Kaus)  seeks to do: establish the "safe period" for a particular woman and then ordain that this is the time to safely have sexual relations if one wishes to not have any kids. The trouble is, it requires meticulous temperature taking at various times during a cycle to establish where that safe period begins and ends, and often this will be for no more than 10 days or so in a given month. Presumably, the couple is quite happy to do without sex the other two thirds of the time!

Thus, the moralizers of the Vatican are actually demanding that married couples act UNNATURALLY, since as Daugherty observes (ibid.):

"Humans are free from physiologically determined sexual desires so we possess a more or less permanent sexuality from adolescence to old age."

Indeed! But the Church and its robed minions (and now evidently younger acolytes in colleges)  seek to dictate that despite being sexual or having sexual desires from adolescence until old age, her members are only free to discharge those desires under certain limited times and limited conditions. For example, teens who have such exploding desires on account of their hormones are warned they cannot even masturbate to relieve themselves because those organs are only allowed to morally function in the state of marriage. Then....once married, the couple is informed they may gratify their mutual sexual desires only if they are open to conception....that is, unless they use the rhythm method.  Anyone not see a pattern here?

 

But once more, my gripe is not so much the Vatican roping  in its own flock’s gonads, but seeking to rope in the gonads of secular employees working at their schools, hospitals etc. (And please don’t anyone tell me “They can get another job!” – NO, not in this low aggregate demand, high unemployment environment. That’s like telling a guy who’s been denied food stamps (and on his last legs)  to go jump off a roof, then he won’t need them!) Besides, would Catholics tell Catholic employees to just "get another job" if their hospital was taken over by Hindu owners? I doubt it!
 

Julian Pleasants has observed (op. cit., p. 88) the Vatican has always been hostage to:

 

"Aristotelian modes of thought which tend to fix behaviors within very limited and fixed definitions and categories."

Thus, the Church once believed it "natural" that some men be enslaved because they were “unable to manage their own affairs”  (ibid.)So why be surprised when the same Church seeks to ordain all her members abide by a sexuality more fitting of lower primates?   However, be that as it may, we MUST express surprise (and outrage ) when the Church and its enablers like FOCUS seek to impose that same sexuality on secularists. That is simply unacceptable.

 

The abiding question for me is: Why would 21^st century college students, embedded in a bunch like FOCUS,  be yoked  to Aristotelian modes of thought they seek to impose on their more enlightened peers or secularists? Maybe they are jealous they themselves never broke free of their mental chains to see just how limited they are by the Vatican’s nonsense. And while we’re at it, let me remind them that the birth control proscription has never been stated ex Cathedra so it’s not infallible. It is proposed under the Magisterium or Teaching Office. As one honest padre once confided to me: "You are free to use your own conscience in this regard, since the teaching isn't binding."

 

As for abortion, the FOCUS groupies ought to bear in mind that John Connery, S.J,  a leading Catholic historian,  showed that up to 1869 the Church’s Canon Law had historically held abortion to be murder only subsequent to the end of the first trimester.[1]  The interesting thing is that for the bulk of Church history the practice of abortion was allowed, at least up to the first three months of pregnancy. More interesting is that the doctrine of papal infallibility was pronounced in 1870. Could it be that the latter doctrine was introduced to back up the Church’s change in its moral position on abortion? If so, one wonders who really controls the Church, the Holy Spirit-  as is so often claimed-  or zealous prelates in positions of high power who fear relinquishing vise-like grips on their congregations[2]?

Oh, one also wonders if they still teach critical thinking at Catholic universities, as Loyola did in the 1960s - even encouraging atheists such as Jean -Paul Sarte to lecture us on existentialism! To see FOCUS' antics is to wonder if critical thinking went the way of the Dodo - at least in the universities that harbor FOCUS outlets!

---

[1] Sagan and Druyan: PARADE, (April 22, 1990), 6.

[2] And  (most recently), nuns, mainly belonging to The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which was issued a reprimand by the Vatican for straying outside the purview of Church teachings – especially after they defended the inclusion of contraceptive services in Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The Vatican has also censured Sr. Margaret Farley (of Yale Divinity School) after publication of her book, ‘Just Love’. Farley evidently stepped on Vatican toes when she justified artificial contraception as well as masturbation within marriage as an aid to preserving fidelity.

 

"Jen Ratio" and Goodness: Maybe We Should Take Note

 Sandra Fluke Embodies a high jen person of goodness
According to Dacher Keltner, in his book, 'Born to Be Good', "Jen is a central concept in the teachings of Confucius and refers to a complex mixture of kindness, humanity and respect that transpires between people."

In later parts of his book, he even makes the case that there are biological markers that are signatures for "high jen" humans, including: vagus nerve operation (eliciting lower heartbeat and release of oxytocin inducing more compassion for fellow humans), oxytocin itself - inducing greater empathy for others, more trust, and the Duchenne smile - embodying the outward manifestation of love of humanity and a general trust.

As we can see by examination of the photo of Sandra Fluke - at the Democratic Convention- her face captures the "Duchenne smile", and hence manifests higher oxytocin levels in her physiology, as well as being a "vagal superstar" in the parlance of Prof. Keltner. These also reflect a "high jen" persona or to quote Confucius: "A person of high jen brings the good things of others to completeness." By contrast, a negative, scowling persona indicates low jen and he is more likely to bring the bad things of others to completion. Moreover he doesn't trust others unless they are part of his immediate kin.

Keltner's claim and which is expatiated upon in his book, is that the jen concept "reveals a new way to think about the evolution of human goodness." Also, why is it that those like Sandra Fluke exhibit high jen while her calumniators, say like Rush Limbaugh - exhibit very low jen? It could be on account of their upbringing. Very often, as Keltner observes, low -jen humans originate in the cradle. They are seldom held by their mothers, they are usually slapped or screamed at rather than embraced, hugged, and these actions lead to negative physiological markers - including low oxytocin levels, and overly excited vagus nerve response to most situations.

The "jen ratio" is the somewhat subjective measure that allows the quality of jen in a person to be assessed. According to Prof. Keltner, when assessing the jen ratio in another person, we place all his negative recent actions in the denominator, and all his positive actions in the numerator. For example, let's say he's a blogger who professes to be religious and aspires to carry forth "God's holy word". Then in the numerator we place all those times he has encouraged others and shown true Christian love to them, and in the denominator we place all those occasions in his blogs where he's threatened them with hell even indirectly (e.g. putting 'tick, tick tock' up ) or inserted any hellish images - say of atheists burning up. Let's say just once he's written an inspiring piece on his blog that elevates other religions, while 25 times he'd put up hell images or condemning words in the past month. Then his jen ratio is: 1/ 25 = 0.04.

Keltner also maintains one can apply the jen ratio to just about anything: one's interior life, the tenor of a family reunion, the goodwill of a neighborhood, the rhetoric of a president or the actions of a political party. From this, one would be able to say that very plausibly Obama's rhetoric is "high jen" while the GOP's  behavior, standoffs on the fiscal cliff and (coming soon) the debt ceiling is very, very low jen.

Sandra Fluke's caring for her sisters facing health problems because of their being unable to access affordable contraceptives, is very high jen. She obviously seeks to bring the good of other young women to completeness. She even put herself on the line, exposing herself to the vitriol of pigs like Limbaugh! Her speech also at the Dem convention disclosed her as a high jen, basically good person. Her Duchenne smile is the physiological marker and confirmation. It is the outward signature of an innate, humane goodness which trusts other people implicitly and seeks to bring their best potential to fruition.

Keltner also makes the case that just as people have jen ratios, so also do nations. As he observes:

"Nations whose citizens bring the good in others to completion thrive. High jen ratios are the hallmark of healthy societies."

He goes on to cite a study that showed (ibid.):

"For every 15 percent increase in the trust of a nation's citizens, their economic fortunes rise by $430."

What about the United States? Is it gaining or losing jen? According to Keltner (p. 9):

In the recent explosion of studies in social well being, signs of loss of jen in the United States are incontrovertible. The percentage of Americans who trust their fellow citizens has dropped fifteen percentage points in the past fifteen years."

He lists the symptoms of ill health/ low jen  as follows:

- increasing feelings of anomie, greater loneliness

- the trend toward less happy marriages,

- People have fewer close friends, intimates

- Young babies have "more contact with their strollers" than human hands

Keltner also attributes (p. 195)  the American low jen ratio to a "touch-deprived culture". This ends up triggering a cycle whose outcome is inevitably lower oxytocin, less national trust. The lower oxytocin resulting from lack of tactile stimulation then initiates even less trust, and lower oxytocin. He asserts that the widespread tactile deprivation in the U.S. - from the case of parents ignoring crying infants, to teachers fearful of patting students on the head for good work (on account of possible abuse charges) "owes its deep roots to the Puritans, well known for their attempts at extirpating human delights".  The 40 -year long hostile "drug war"  (especially against MJ) is also a creature originating with this dynamic, as is the widespread fear of sex, intimacy.

Interestingly, Prof. Keltner ties these trends to an "ideology" that if pursued further will lead to a national jen ratio of 0. He refers to the main culprit as "rational choice theory"  and the "strongest proponents are in the halls of economic departments". The deformed creature resulting is "Homo Economicus" - a misshapen critter solely looking out for himself and his financial advancement, and a believer in the Neoliberal idiom that each person must disdain governmental supports or assistance in favor of "personal initiative". This also feeds into the nation's overt hyper-consumption, since each individual as a worker is then expected to consume, consume and consume using his wages....so remain on the work-spend treadmill til he croaks.

A high jen society with a view to correcting the unemployment problem, for example,  would instead leave out rational choice theory and de-prioritize consumption. It would see the problem as too many work hours by a relative small proportion, so would seek to partition those work hours so they are more equitably allotted to all who need work. Thus, instead of current 50-60 hour weeks (imperiling family health and personal time), we'd go down to the more reasonable 30-35 hours a week. This would enable more people to be hired, albeit at the shorter hours. They'd initially earn less income, for sure, but they'd also have less for infantile consumption. As the new wage -work tableaux then settled in, a new wage-price structure would be the outcome ...so prices would be held in concordance with the new wage structures. But by then, a firm saving ethic would already be established, having been reinforced by earlier lower income.

The problem is that the rational choice theorist doesn't trust for this to happen, or be beneficial to society. It more suits his Neoliberal fancy to have definite income winners and losers as opposed to spreading the wealth (income, resources) so more of the society benefits. It also suits his fancy,say if a shareholder of some company like Mattel, to have more 'Barbie' buyers not fewer. Naturally, this person is severely low jen!

The general outcome of this inverse jen thinking abounds: "economic losses loom larger than equivalent gains, losing twenty dollars stings more than finding a twenty pleases, " and thus the affected person is further induced to pursue rigorous self-interest.

Interestingly, this same exact dynamic is what Benjamin Barber has defined as in accord with the "infantile consumer ethos" in his book, CONSUMED.  Thus, we see that the Neoliberal, self-interested pursuit of economic gains is tied to a naturally infantile, low jen persona.

Is there more to it? I believe there is. I, for one, hypothesize it's not merely a matter of rational choice theory taking hold but rather excess militarism too. Militarism extolled as a national virtue debases a country, and causes it to pursue decidedly low jen goals such as less international cooperation, perpetual war (to keep the military industrial complex fed), building of empire - with military bases scattered by the thousands across the globe, and a military culture which praises all soldiers who've "served" as some kind of super-citizens, but disparages other citizens, say like Peace Corps workers, or even the medical volunteers for 'Doctors without Borders'. The sure sign of a sick, low -jen society is none other than one for which the glorification of the military is paramount. And the more money we cast into its maw the worse it will get, including manifesting in outbreaks of irrational gun violence.

Keltner is basically correct, but he needed to extend his net of low jen culprits a bit wider!