Skip to main content

The Left's tortured logic on the First Amendment and those birth control and abortion mandates

Benjamin Wicker expounds on the tortured logic by which "progressives" try to make the right to have abortificants paid for by insurance provided by one's employer a matter of an employee's freedom of religion, while weaseling out of the more logical conclusion that forcing an employer whose religious beliefs include the conviction that abortion is the wrongful taking of a human life to pay for what, according to those beliefs, is nothing more or less than murder.

I, for one, know of no religion which includes the commandment, "Thou shalt have abortion and birth control, and it has to be  paid for by one's employer." Only if that stipulation as to the payer were included as a part of an employee's religious conviction would the  is the Left's "freedom of religion" argument even be logically coherent. On the other hand, "You shall not murder" (the literal translation of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Fifth Commandment, and the Jewish and Reformed Sixth) is an oldie but goodie, acknowledged in principle at least in principle by most religions.

On the other hand, forcing a person who believes abortion (or birth control, for that matter) to be morally wrong to pay for them is so patent a violation of that person's freedom of religion that it's hard to see how even the most sheeplike "progressive" could honestly fail to see that while the argument doesn't even come close to working  for the employee (who could always pay for the services in question some other way, or for that matter get a new employer), mandating employer-provided abortion and birth control services even for those whose religion regards them as serious moral wrongs is pretty much the textbook definition both of "establishing religion-" the employee's secularism- and "prohibiting the free exercise" of the employer's faith.

And yes, secularism is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment. So is any systematic world view, whether or not it includes belief in a deity or an afterlife. The First Amendment's purpose was to establish an equal footing for all belief systems concerning ultimate questions and their impact on our communal lives, not to create a special class for those whose world views happen to include certain specified subject matter.

There's a scientific discipline called "fuzzy logic." I'd  think a liberal must have invented it, were it not for the fact that- "fuzzy" or not- it is, after all, a form of logic.

Ethicist Robert George of Georgetown University discusses the issue here.


Popular posts from this blog

McMullin, Kasich, Hickenlooper, Huntsman, or somebody else sane in 2020!

I don't expect to be disenfranchised in 2020. I'm looking forward to Evan McMullin running against President Trump and whatever left-wing extremist the Democrats nominate. McMullin may or may not run for the Senate next year, and he may or may not run for president as an independent again next time around, but the nation can't afford to lose its most eloquent and intelligent critic of the populist takeover of the Republican party and the Executive Branch. We need the man in public life.

But interesting alternatives have developed. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been mentioned as a potential primary challenger for Mr. Trump. I hope somebody continues the fight for the soul of my former party, even though I believe it to be a lost cause. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban is reportedly also considering a challenge to Mr. Trump. While I tend to see him at this point as somewhere to the left of where a candidate I would feel comfortable supporting might be, I would wish him well. Still, I see…

A modest proposal for a shocking innovation which is completely within the rules but which would, if adopted, revolutionize college football

I call it defense.

The idea- crazy as it may sound- is to supplement the scoring of points by your offense with an attempt to stop the other team from scoring them. Yeah, I know.  Really "out there," isn't it? But it has a history of winning not only games but championships. Modern college teams should try it more.

I'm a bit bummed about the Rose Bowl outcome but amused by the score. It seems that certain conferences aren't sure whether they're playing college football or high school basketball! I've noticed that in the scores of Sooner games. Last season the nation's college teams set a record by scoring an average of slightly more than 30 points each per game. That's a lot. Historically, that's a REAL lot.

The final score of the Rose Bowl was 54-48, though to be fair that was in double overtime. But to get there, the teams had to be tied 45-45 at the end of regulation! Last year was even worse. Southern Cal beat Penn State 52-49- in regulat…

Reflections on the present and future of my Blackhawks

As this season from hell creeps to its close at an excruciating pace and makes all of us devote more of our attention to spring training for the Cubs than we otherwise might, there are calls for the heads of Blackhawks GM Stan Bowman and even the greatest coach in Blackhawks history, Joel Quenneville.

No general manager or coach could have made Marian Hossa and Corey Crawford healthy or prevented Toews and Keith and Saad from having the worst seasons of their careers or foreseen that a series of trades most of which made perfect sense at the time wouldn't pan out. The Hawks are one season removed from the second-best regular season in their history. This will be the first time in a decade that they haven't made the playoffs.

With the exception of the Pens, maybe the Kings and (for different reasons) the Golden Knights, every other team in the NHL would kill to have won three Stanley Cups in the past decade. In fact, only the Hawks, the Pens, the Kings, the Wings, and the Brui…