Religious War and Peace

Ah, the holiday season. This month, we commence our annual orgy of consumerism to the lilting tunes of pundits debating the War on Christmas, the War on Christians and (depending upon the belligerency, politics and general cluelessness of the combatant) Obama’s War on Religion.

Because requiring businesses that offer health insurance to cover contraceptives along with Viagra is clearly an assault on Christianity.

This year, the Supreme Court will once again engage partisans over the proper place of religion in American society. The Court has accepted cases challenging the contraceptive mandate on the theory that requiring that contraceptive coverage be made available as part of comprehensive health insurance constitutes a “substantial burden” on the religious liberty of corporations like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties.

Veteran Court watcher Linda Greenhouse speculates that the anger about this regulation stems from the perception that “the government is putting its thumb on the scale in favor of birth control, or sex without consequences.”  Disconnecting sex from those consequences–pregnancy, STDs, whatever– is evidently more important than the significant health benefits of making contraception more widely available. It’s even more important than the documented and significant decline in abortions among poor women when access to birth control is provided.

Whatever the psychological impetus for the assault on this provision of the Affordable Care Act, the legal question–and the most important policy question for a free and diverse society–is whether and when employers must respect the fundamental rights and moral autonomy of their employees. As Greenhouse puts it:

There’s a powerful argument to be made, both in policy and law, that an employer of any faith or no faith who chooses to enter the secular marketplace can’t pick and choose which rules to follow. As some of the federal judges who have rejected the religious claims in these cases have pointed out, no employer would have the right to tell employees that they can’t use their wages to obtain contraceptives, abortions or any other legal product or service. By paying employees as the law requires, neither a corporation nor its owner is endorsing the employees’ choice of what to spend their money on.

What makes providing contraceptive coverage a “substantial burden” on an employer’s religion? It’s not financial–insurance companies have agreed not to charge anything extra for its inclusion. Is it simply the knowledge that some employees will use it?

Would the “substantial burden” logic apply to all sincerely-held religious beliefs? If an employer is a Jehovah’s Witness, for example, should he be able to exclude coverage for blood transfusions?  What if she is a Christian Scientist–can she limit insurance coverage to prayer? Can a company owned by Scientologists exclude coverage for mental health services?

In a free society, religious privilege can only go so far. Religious organizations are permitted wide latitude to operate in accordance with their doctrine. Public and commercial enterprises, however, are subject to neutral laws of general application. Police officers who disapprove of abortion must nonetheless protect clinics from would-be bombers. Racist shop owners cannot refuse to serve black customers. Whatever their owners’ beliefs, commercial enterprises can’t hire and fire on the basis of race, gender and religion.

In America, people who choose to engage in commerce do not thereby control fiefdoms populated by peasants whose material and spiritual lives are theirs to direct.  

Hobby Lobby is not being victimized by laws that prevent its owners from privileging their own religious beliefs at the expense of their employees. The only religious war is the one these “Christians” are waging.

Happy Holidays.

Comments

Losing Control

I have a theory about why people are so agitated these days. I think it is because our daily lives have become too complicated–because it is increasingly impossible for any one person to truly understand–let alone master– the various social and scientific systems on which we increasingly rely.

Let’s be honest: how many of us really understand how the financial sector works? How government policy affects the Internet? The intricacies of tax or regulatory policies? Reading the current punditry about the Affordable Care Act leads inexorably to one conclusion–no one knows very much about medical practice, the healthcare industry or the ACA. Not to mention the construction of a website.

Technology is an increasingly important part of our everyday lives, but I know I’m not the only person who can’t fix my own car, and whose first and only response to a computer malfunction is to reboot.  Very few of us have the background or expertise to independently evaluate claims about climate change or the loss of biodiversity.

My programmable thermostat says its 69 degrees in my house. It feels colder, but who am I to argue with that sophisticated new piece of technology?

As the world around us gets more complicated, our discomfort over losing personal control of our lives increases. Different people react differently to this perception that we are at the mercy of systems beyond our ken or control: some simply “opt out,” become disengaged. (“My vote/participation makes no difference, so why bother?”) Others retreat into simplification and ideology. (“If government would just get out of the way/ if we lived by biblical principles/if parents would ban video games everything would be better.”)

As we lose control (or the illusion of control) over ever greater portions of our lives, we need to recognize what may be the most pressing issue posed by an ever-more complex modern society: the need to know who to trust.  How do we identify those who are truly expert and honest, those who are not spinning or denying or manufacturing evidence, those who are reliable interpreters of their particular disciplines?

It’s hard enough to find a trustworthy auto mechanic when you don’t really know how your car functions.

Right now, Americans don’t trust anyone. Not the media, not the government, not academics, not businesspeople. As a result, we can’t even agree on what our problems are, let alone agree on solutions.

When you don’t trust anyone, when you don’t know whose description of the world you inhabit is correct, that world becomes a very scary place.

We won’t regain a sense of control until we collectively decide who we can trust. I have no idea how we do that.

Comments

If Evidence Mattered….

When I was researching my 2007 book, God and Country: America in Red and Blue, I came across surveys that asked clergy of various denominations about their economic policy preferences and beliefs. Not surprisingly, there was a split among Protestants between those who favored the “Social Gospel” and those we might think of as Social Darwinists.

What did surprise me was the discovery that the most conservative clergy viewed capitalism as the only economic system compatible with Christianity–as though Adam Smith’s “Hidden Hand” was another word for God.

Clergy aren’t the only folks whose economic beliefs have a whiff of religious ferver about them, of course. That’s what makes economic policy so tricky–ideology regularly trumps evidence. I thought about that when I read a recent article in the New York Times comparing economic performance of Wisconsin and Minnesota, states with similar histories, political cultures and weather.

In 2010, Wisconsin–as everyone who follows politics knows–elected Republican majorities in both houses of its legislature and Scott Walker (very rightwing protege of the Koch brothers) as Governor. Also in 2010, Minnesota elected Mark Dayton, described by the Times as one of the most progressive candidates for governor in the country, and in 2012 gave him a Democratic legislature to work with.

Minnesota raised taxes by 2.1 billion dollars, and introduced the fourth highest income tax bracket in the country. Wisconsin, under Walker, reduced taxes and spending, and attacked the collective bargaining rights of unions.

So–how have these states fared? According to the article, three years into Walker’s term, Wisconsin ranks 34th in the nation for job growth, well behind Minnesota, which has the fifth fastest-growing state economy. (Forbes ranks Minnesota as the 8th best state for business.) This is particularly noteworthy, since Minnesota’s economy was “subpar” under Dayton’s predecessor, Tim Pawlenty.

Dayton invested heavily in K-12 education and all-day kindergarden; Walker cut state funding of K-12 schools by more than 15%.

Dayton expanded Medicaid, and created a state insurance exchange that enrolled 90% of its first month’s target. Premiums in Minnesota are on average the lowest in the country. Walker refused to expand Medicaid or create an exchange, and as the Times reports, “The uninsured and ill bear the burden.”

Everything isn’t peachy in Minnesota, but it’s hard to ignore the difference in economic performance–not to mention quality of life–between the two approaches. It turns out that beating up on school teachers and other public servants while giving tax breaks to the wealthy doesn’t produce jobs or spur economic growth. It also turns out that raising taxes isn’t necessarily an economic kiss of death.

Not that evidence matters. There’s a reason we call it “blind faith.”

Comments

Crime and the City

Our son Stephen is home from the Big Apple for Thanksgiving. He lives in a spiffy new high-rise on the west side of Manhattan, in a redeveloping neighborhood that I would have been afraid to walk in even ten years ago.

I don’t worry about his living in that neighborhood, however, because crime in New York has fallen steadily over the past couple of decades. You can quibble about the reasons (my son suggests it’s because poor people can no longer afford to live there; defenders of “stop and frisk” say it’s because racial profiling and willingness to ignore the civil liberties of minorities has worked), but whatever the reasons, the bottom line is that New York is 65.4% less dangerous to live in than Indianapolis.

According to Areavibes.com, “in New York, as compared to Indianapolis, IN you are: 40.5% less likely to get robbed, 45.6% less likely to get murdered, 81.8% less likely to get your car stolen.”

Last year, Indianapolis had 11.5 murders per 100,000 people. New York had 6.3. We had 52.2 rapes per 100,000; New York had 13.3. Etcetera.

I seem to recall Greg Ballard running for Mayor on the promise that he would make crime “Job One.”

I hope he’s doing better with whatever Job Two was…..

Comments

Let’s Give Thanks…For Being “Unbiblical”

As Thanksgiving approaches, it is incumbent upon us to count our blessings, to remind ourselves of the multiple good things in our lives. (Complaining is far too easy these days, especially if you care at all about public policy and the state of the nation. )

A recent post to the Civic Literacy blog by Don Knebel makes a pretty compelling case for the proposition that a lack of “bible-based” lawmaking should top our list of gratitude-inducing items.

Most of us simply shrug off the constant drumbeat from the theocratic Right about our “secular” laws and the need to “return to biblical principles.” Don’s post demonstrates something I’ve long suspected: these pious frauds have no idea what most of those principles actually were or are. (My personal favorite from Don’s extensive list: Public execution by stoning would be required for “stubborn and rebellious” children.  Deuteronomy 21:18-21. If I’d only known….)

Click through for a truly edifying lesson in “bible law.”

Comments