Matt Walsh encapsulates the unhinged reaction to the Hobby Lobby ruling:
If you won't give it to me, then I cannot have it. This is what a child might accurately say to his parents. However your employer is not your parent, and you are not a child.
The mindset is awful. It goes beyond "The State must provide this to me for free or there is no justice."
Justice apparently requires not only that you get it for free, but that you have the satisfaction of forcing those devout Christians to violate their beliefs and bend over for you. Otherwise, it's no better than slavery.
Oddly enough, the only people in danger of being actually forced to do something -- a condition somewhat more like slavery than, say, being provided free gifts by the State instead of your employer -- were the ones being hated today.
People used to talk about "character flaws" but somewhere last century, such terminology and the judgments inherent in using such language, sort of went away.
But when seeing the vitriol being tossed about in reaction to this, that's all I can think of.
It is amazing how much wrath is crossing my screen. I get NARAL, which is just lying about the facts (claiming that Viagra is covered but not the pill, when in fact HL is happy to cover the pill; but, as Cass points out, the pill is covered but not the condom!). NARAL is just doing what it does to gin up outrage and funding for itself.
But the ordinary people, who aren't political lobbies, they now sound like the rhetoric of their favorite political lobby. I've heard that HL really has no religious principles at all, because they only love money; that this ruling shows that the SCOTUS thinks of women as the "property of their employers"; that this will mean the end of birth control; and etc., etc.
It's crazy. The morning-after abortifacients, which are the only "contraception" that Hobby Lobby opposes, aren't even the sort of month-in, month-out contraception that runs up (modest) bills. They're extremely unusual last-ditch emergency measures. Are they really expensive enough that possibly having to pay for a pill, what, every few years or decades, is a big deal? Are there people who think it's important for someone else to pay for a pill that might be taken once in a lifetime? Or are there people who are so irresponsible about birth control that they have recourse to a morning-after pill with some regularity?
...ordinary people, who aren't political lobbies, they now sound like the rhetoric of their favorite political lobby. I've heard that HL really has no religious principles at all, because they only love money; that this ruling shows that the SCOTUS thinks of women as the "property of their employers"; that this will mean the end of birth control; and etc., etc.
And that's nonsense, Grim - it's emotion talking. But I have objected a few times to similar rhetoric on the right, only to be told essentially, "I don't care what the facts are and I can't prove any of this - still, that's how I feel."
Whenever arguments devolve into unsupported statements of intent "I KNOW WHY THEY"RE REALLY DOING THIS!!!!", I find it difficult to take them seriously. Especially when most of the time, the asserted "WHY" runs 180 degrees contrary to what the other party says its reasons are.
"They think women are property" isn't substantively different from "They think we're all their slaves" - it's a gross exaggeration as well as a wholly unsupported assertion. Governments infringe upon individual freedom all the time - that's the trade-off inherent in the social compact. And so far as I can see, no one has been enslaved nor has there been anything close to slavery proposed, yet I see that one all the time.
People on both sides have very strong feelings about issues like this. And both sides routinely dismiss each other's feelings as silly and detestable.
Arguments are one thing - I think we *have* to be able to examine the validity of arguments. But it's hardly unrealistic for the Left to fear a return to the days - not so long ago - when it was perfectly legal for a State to criminalize the use of birth control between married couples.
It's not as though this state of affairs never existed. It's right there in our recent history!
Is this really a completely unreasonable fear? Unlikely, certainly. But some of the fears expressed by the right have no analogue in US history. They haven't happened yet, though they might still happen.
If we dismiss fear of something that happened only a handful of decades ago, doesn't that strongly suggest that we should also dismiss fears of things which have never happened in over 2 centuries on the same grounds?
If we dismiss fear of something that happened only a handful of decades ago, doesn't that strongly suggest that we should also dismiss fears of things which have never happened in over 2 centuries on the same grounds?
Not necessarily. There hasn't been a major asteroid strike on a US city in that time, but it's reasonable to think one could happen next year; all the right forces are in place.
On the other hand, assuming the accuracy of the figures being cited by the people who have been frothing at the mouth -- quite an assumption, I know, but bear with me -- 99% of American women use birth control during their lives. The religious objections to contraception are now seriously held only by a few, and chiefly take the form of arguments for personal conduct -- not calls for government regulation. Even here, where the thought is that these are abortifacients, we are arguing about how they shall be provided for free to any women who wants them, not whether they should be available by law.
So are the right forces in place? It's pretty doubtful. Hot Air is talking about a possible Republican move to just make all forms of oral contraception over-the-counter, so as to make this a non-issue politically. Of course, then you'd have to pay for the things, so maybe that wouldn't do....
The asteroid strike analogy doesn't work well for me. I don't think the concerns about what a statist culture is evolving into are as unreasonable as worrying that we'll suffer a catastrophic astronomical event within the next few months that has a vanishingly small probability of happening in any particular aeon.
"But some of the fears expressed by the right have no analogue in US history." True, some of them don't (others do), but we've sure seen them happen in a number of other countries, and it's reasonable to draw parallels with the kind of political and social philosophies that made the trend right at home.
I agree that heated exaggeration is an enemy to rational discourse. But it's a sorry state of affairs when people get so sloppy in their thinking that the only way they can see to ensure that someone won't take away a resource from them is to start legislating a requirement that everyone value it as much as they do, and indeed provide it gratis: everything that's not forbidden is compulsory. I regret the inability to respect people's freedom to decide for themselves what's valuable, and then exoect them to use their own efforts to provide it. Nothing ever comes of that inability but loss of freedom. We use all kinds of metaphors to describe this feeble state of mind: slaves, children--none of them are literally accurate, but they're cautionary and fair.
If you won't give it to me, then I cannot have it.
ReplyDeleteThat's such a dumb argument that I'm amazed anyone takes it seriously. Why doesn't the ACA provide free birth control to men?
Must mean they can't have it. Ever.
*sigh*
The mindset is awful. It goes beyond "The State must provide this to me for free or there is no justice."
ReplyDeleteJustice apparently requires not only that you get it for free, but that you have the satisfaction of forcing those devout Christians to violate their beliefs and bend over for you. Otherwise, it's no better than slavery.
Oddly enough, the only people in danger of being actually forced to do something -- a condition somewhat more like slavery than, say, being provided free gifts by the State instead of your employer -- were the ones being hated today.
It goes further, doesn't it? If I don't have it, it's because you've withheld it from me.
ReplyDeleteIt's applied even to intelligence ("you didn't give me access to more education!") and bad eating habits ("you left me stranded in the food desert!").
People used to talk about "character flaws" but somewhere last century, such terminology and the judgments inherent in using such language, sort of went away.
ReplyDeleteBut when seeing the vitriol being tossed about in reaction to this, that's all I can think of.
It is amazing how much wrath is crossing my screen. I get NARAL, which is just lying about the facts (claiming that Viagra is covered but not the pill, when in fact HL is happy to cover the pill; but, as Cass points out, the pill is covered but not the condom!). NARAL is just doing what it does to gin up outrage and funding for itself.
ReplyDeleteBut the ordinary people, who aren't political lobbies, they now sound like the rhetoric of their favorite political lobby. I've heard that HL really has no religious principles at all, because they only love money; that this ruling shows that the SCOTUS thinks of women as the "property of their employers"; that this will mean the end of birth control; and etc., etc.
It's crazy. The morning-after abortifacients, which are the only "contraception" that Hobby Lobby opposes, aren't even the sort of month-in, month-out contraception that runs up (modest) bills. They're extremely unusual last-ditch emergency measures. Are they really expensive enough that possibly having to pay for a pill, what, every few years or decades, is a big deal? Are there people who think it's important for someone else to pay for a pill that might be taken once in a lifetime? Or are there people who are so irresponsible about birth control that they have recourse to a morning-after pill with some regularity?
ReplyDelete...ordinary people, who aren't political lobbies, they now sound like the rhetoric of their favorite political lobby. I've heard that HL really has no religious principles at all, because they only love money; that this ruling shows that the SCOTUS thinks of women as the "property of their employers"; that this will mean the end of birth control; and etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's nonsense, Grim - it's emotion talking. But I have objected a few times to similar rhetoric on the right, only to be told essentially, "I don't care what the facts are and I can't prove any of this - still, that's how I feel."
Whenever arguments devolve into unsupported statements of intent "I KNOW WHY THEY"RE REALLY DOING THIS!!!!", I find it difficult to take them seriously. Especially when most of the time, the asserted "WHY" runs 180 degrees contrary to what the other party says its reasons are.
"They think women are property" isn't substantively different from "They think we're all their slaves" - it's a gross exaggeration as well as a wholly unsupported assertion. Governments infringe upon individual freedom all the time - that's the trade-off inherent in the social compact. And so far as I can see, no one has been enslaved nor has there been anything close to slavery proposed, yet I see that one all the time.
People on both sides have very strong feelings about issues like this. And both sides routinely dismiss each other's feelings as silly and detestable.
Arguments are one thing - I think we *have* to be able to examine the validity of arguments. But it's hardly unrealistic for the Left to fear a return to the days - not so long ago - when it was perfectly legal for a State to criminalize the use of birth control between married couples.
It's not as though this state of affairs never existed. It's right there in our recent history!
Is this really a completely unreasonable fear? Unlikely, certainly. But some of the fears expressed by the right have no analogue in US history. They haven't happened yet, though they might still happen.
If we dismiss fear of something that happened only a handful of decades ago, doesn't that strongly suggest that we should also dismiss fears of things which have never happened in over 2 centuries on the same grounds?
If we dismiss fear of something that happened only a handful of decades ago, doesn't that strongly suggest that we should also dismiss fears of things which have never happened in over 2 centuries on the same grounds?
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. There hasn't been a major asteroid strike on a US city in that time, but it's reasonable to think one could happen next year; all the right forces are in place.
On the other hand, assuming the accuracy of the figures being cited by the people who have been frothing at the mouth -- quite an assumption, I know, but bear with me -- 99% of American women use birth control during their lives. The religious objections to contraception are now seriously held only by a few, and chiefly take the form of arguments for personal conduct -- not calls for government regulation. Even here, where the thought is that these are abortifacients, we are arguing about how they shall be provided for free to any women who wants them, not whether they should be available by law.
So are the right forces in place? It's pretty doubtful. Hot Air is talking about a possible Republican move to just make all forms of oral contraception over-the-counter, so as to make this a non-issue politically. Of course, then you'd have to pay for the things, so maybe that wouldn't do....
The asteroid strike analogy doesn't work well for me. I don't think the concerns about what a statist culture is evolving into are as unreasonable as worrying that we'll suffer a catastrophic astronomical event within the next few months that has a vanishingly small probability of happening in any particular aeon.
ReplyDelete"But some of the fears expressed by the right have no analogue in US history." True, some of them don't (others do), but we've sure seen them happen in a number of other countries, and it's reasonable to draw parallels with the kind of political and social philosophies that made the trend right at home.
I agree that heated exaggeration is an enemy to rational discourse. But it's a sorry state of affairs when people get so sloppy in their thinking that the only way they can see to ensure that someone won't take away a resource from them is to start legislating a requirement that everyone value it as much as they do, and indeed provide it gratis: everything that's not forbidden is compulsory. I regret the inability to respect people's freedom to decide for themselves what's valuable, and then exoect them to use their own efforts to provide it. Nothing ever comes of that inability but loss of freedom. We use all kinds of metaphors to describe this feeble state of mind: slaves, children--none of them are literally accurate, but they're cautionary and fair.