The limits of responsible hedonism

From the New York Times: “It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage. “  The article has been getting a good deal of attention, and is in fact worth reading as it probes more thoroughly into the subject than one would expect from a short piece in this paper.  An even shorter companion piece is also worth reading.  The articles acknowledge the contribution of the welfare state to illegitimacy, as well as declining social stigma and the sexual revolution.  Economic conditions are also considered, as they should be, for the problem is more complex than some on the Right would acknowledge. It’s no longer as simple as abstaining during the teen years and then getting married and settling down to raise a family–for many Americas the jobs aren’t there.

But rather than rehashing the points mentioned in the article I’d like to focus on how it illustrates the limits of the cultural ideal of responsible hedonism.  The message that the successful are taught is to have fun, but not to screw up their future.  Use contraception, get an abortion if that fails, stay in school, get your degree, get your career settled, and then marry someone else from your income/educational bracket and have one to three kids.  And this model works for some people in our society (the middle-upper class).  It may be immoral, but it works.  Indulgence is tempered by interest in personal advancement.

But this model has little to offer others.  For every young woman who’s careful lest her promiscuity interfere with her plans for med school there are a dozen who don’t have such plans to be interfered with–who will never have such plans, because they are not among of the fortunate born with a high IQ.  The average person is uninterested in the mores of the upper-middle class’ responsible hedonism because there isn’t much benefit to them from it, or at least it appears that way.  There is, of course, a world of difference between working class respectability (something that was prevalent not that long ago in this country) and the permanent dependency of the underclass, but the difference isn’t realized by telling people to follow their dreams of advanced degrees and professional careers.  Most people aren’t cut out for that.  Community college classes perhaps.  Vocational training.  But their career dreams will not be ruined by having a baby, in part because they don’t have career dreams.  They’d like more money, but they are unlikely to be driven by a particular passion for their work.  To the extent that they might have dreams, it would be of a working class respectability.  Family, house, tolerable job–the desires of the great mass of mankind.  And the fulfillment of these increasingly has nothing to do with marriage.

Friday links

First, someone in the mainstream media finally noticed that the oft-repeated line about the use of contraception by Catholic women (98%!) is bunk.

Second, Charles Krauthammer’s column today lays out in brief the dictatorial nature of Obamacare.  “This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.”

Controlling Leviathan

The mighty Leviathan of Job 41 was famously taken by Hobbes as a title for the state and has since become synonymous with a powerful, all-encompassing government.  The metaphor remains useful, and should perhaps be especially considered by those Christians who wish to use the government to accomplish the charitable goals of the church.  Leviathan is not tame and those who think they can control it will come to ruin.

¹Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

²Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

³Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?

⁴Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

⁵Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

⁶Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

⁷Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

⁸Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

⁹Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

¹⁰None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

 

Victory?

The Obama administration is indeed backing down (sort of, maybe, not really) from its high-profile assault on religious liberty, but at best this can only be considered a defensive victory, and but a partial one at that.  Basic summary (insurance companies still have to provide contraception etc… without a co-pay, but they can’t charge religious groups for this in their premiums (yeah, like a way won’t be found around that).  The points I made the other day when rumors of such a retreat began still stand, but I would like to add a couple more.

1.  Hopefully this experience will teach Catholics to be leery of having the government (especially the federal government) mandate and regulate its way to “social justice.”  A government with the power to legislate, regulate and mandate away every social ill also has the power to be tremendously unjust, even wicked.

2.  Overall, Obamacare is still a net loss for freedom of religion and conscience, even with the new exceptions.  We are worse off than before.  Religiously affiliated groups may be exempt from this mandate (maybe), but private Catholic business owners are not (I’m also unsure of the status of groups, such as the pro-life one I worked for, that are not officially attached to a church but nonetheless have strong, religiously-informed views on contraception and the like).  And the mandate reinforces the cultural view that contraception is necessary for the good life.

3.  It annoys me that the Left, which likes to talk about the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they like sexually, doesn’t recognize any rights for consenting adults to agree on wages and compensation (including a health insurance package) in the workplace.  Nor are these adults apparently capable of anything if the government doesn’t force someone to give it to them.  If Bob the non-Catholic janitor isn’t adult enough to get his own contraception when his boss won’t give it to him for free, how is he adult enough to consent to sex?

 

Update: The more I think about this so-called compromise the stupider it seems.  Forcing the insurance company to eat the cost of providing contraceptives and the rest kinda gets around the “you’re making us pay for things we consider immoral” objection.  But how will insurance companies actually be forced to bear the cost themselves?  How will they be kept from working the charges into the bill?  And, if such provisions were enforced somehow, wouldn’t this simply be trading one injustice for another, that of forcing religious groups to pay for things they object to that of forcing a business to take a loss by giving stuff away?

Now for something entirely different

Lest this blog become entirely devoted to the Left’s attacks on religious freedom, here’s some frivolity for you.

Over the calf dress socks are the best.  Constantly having to pull my socks up during the day is annoying, especially when I’m dressed up.  With over the calf socks instead of the common mid-calf variety this irritation goes away.

More equal than others

The bright side of various anti-discrimination laws is that at least they protect us, right?  However often they may be used by gay activists and other liberal groups, at least they provide some protection for Christians.  Oh, wait, nevermind.  The 11th circuit has ruled against a Christian counselor who wouldn’t provide relationship counseling for a lesbian and instead tried to refer her to someone else.  But perhaps this can be written off on the grounds that she was unprofessional and not doing her job properly.  Christians are still free to express their religious and political views in public without fear of reprisal.

Oh, wait, nevermind again.  A court has just found in favor of the University of Toledo, which fired a woman from her position as Associate Vice President for Human Resources after she wrote a letter to the local newspaper criticizing the gay agenda and homosexual actions.  As Volokh summarizes,

some of the argument suggests that any time any government manager with hiring and firing authority — or even with substantial input into hiring and firing decisions — speaks out in opposition to civil rights laws protecting gays, the government may fire the manager on the grounds that the speech (a) “could disrupt the … [d]epartment by making homosexual employees uncomfortable or disgruntled,” (b) might lead “homosexual prospective employees [to] reconsider applications,” and (c) might “lead to challenges to her personnel decisions.”

To extend this logic a bit further, what if, instead of a letter in a public newspaper, the views were expressed in a religious publication?  What if they were in a private blog post or e-mail that was subsequently circulated publicly?  What if she belonged to a church where the pastor expressed such views?  Would she have to renounce them or risk losing her job?  Exactly where liberals would draw this line I don’t know, but what they’ve already done is enough to cripple religious freedom.

American liberals aren’t going to send riot police to your church on Sunday morning and round everyone up for the gulag (at least, not yet).  They will simply litigate and legislate away your freedom, quietly driving Christians out of their businesses, professions, schools, charities, etc…  They’ll always have an excuse (some homosexuals might have their feelings hurt!  Some women might be inconvenienced in their acquisition of birth control!) and they’ll be neatly dressed and won’t even raise their voices.  And they’ll smugly persecute Christians while patting themselves on the back for their tolerance and enlightenment.  Perhaps the riot police will eventually come into play, and they’ll round up members of various hate groups and make arrests for hate speech.  No doubt they’d like to follow the example of certain European nations where public opposition to homosexual activity is criminalized, but they’ll have won before it gets to that point.  And we’ll look at our liberal rulers, who pride themselves on their benevolence, and tolerance, and respect for opposing viewpoints, and we’ll then look at totalitarians, and then we’ll look again, and be unable to tell them apart.

Contraception free

It appears the the Obama administration may back down from its latest and most high-profile attack on religious liberty.  If this is indeed the case, there are a few lessons to be taken.

1.  While the administration can lose in court (e.g. the Hossana-Tabor decision) or be intimidated by political pressure, its instincts are very much against religious freedom.  Even if they back down here, Obama and his minions will continue to assault religious freedom.

2.  The intrusion of the federal government into all aspects of life will only increase under Obama and the Democrats.  What we’re hoping for here is merely a small concession in the broad regulatory scheme of Obamacare.  Even if religious institutions are not forced to provide goods and services they consider immoral, the federal government will still be mandating and regulating healthcare for everyone else.

3.  Liberals have almost no concept of liberty.  That employers and insurance companies be allowed to decide what to cover is an utterly alien concept for most liberals.  That people can purchase birth control for themselves (rather than the government forcing their employers to provide it via health insurance) is apparently incomprehensible.  They seem determined to have the government intervene whenever they think something is wrong.  “Oh no, they’re running the health insurance for employees of their charity the wrong way!  We must do something!”

4.  Our culture assumes that contraception is necessary and good, and that therefore free (well, someone still pays for it, but you know what I mean) contraception must be good.  Those of us who live contraception free should perhaps be more bold in presenting the alternative.  It is possible to live without contraception.  My lovely wife and I do not use it, and are happier for that.

It’s worse than he thinks

E. J. Dionne is aghast at what the Citizens United decision has wrought: rich individuals and corporations buying ad space to promote their political views, funding the campaigns of candidates they support–oh the horror, the horror!  But it’s worse than he thinks.  Not only are there corporations buying media advertising to promote political positions and candidates–but the entire media is controlled by corporations.  The employees of these corporations have tremendous power regarding what is brought to the public eye and how it is presented.  They also provide platforms for their employees and others chosen by them to present their views.  They even present their corporate positions in widely distributed editorials.  Clearly this corporate control of large parts of political discussion is thoroughly undemocratic.  After all, why should someone like E. J. Dionne be given such a privileged corporate position from which to promulgate his views?  The first amendment?  Oh never mind that, we’re concerned with democracy here.  I’ve read my Rousseau.  I know what needs to be done to protect the General Will from particular influences.

Liberal vs. Progressive

First, here are a couple of good pieces for your enjoyment.  Mark Steyn on the liberal enforcers and the Komen Foundation, and then Wesley J Smith on the Obamacare assault on religious freedom.  Smith’s piece has an interesting historical analogy,

When Pliny the Younger was a provincial governor in the Roman Empire, he wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan asking whether he should execute Christians who refused to burn incense in worship of the emperor. Pliny, in keeping with the customs of the empire, did not care about forcing Christians to believe that the emperor was a god. But in public they had to behave as if they did. Thus, the Christians were in the dock not so much because of their faith in a risen Christ as over their willful refusal to declare themselves part of the reigning social order.

I thought of Pliny when I read that the Obama administration, in creating specific rules to implement Obamacare, will require all employers (with a very narrow exemption discussed below) to offer their employees health insurance that provides FDA-approved contraception, female sterilization, and other “reproductive” services free of charge — even if the employer is a religious organization and doing so violates its doctrine. I also recalled the times that President Obama and other members of his administration have supported “freedom of worship.” However, as in Pliny’s time, “freedom of worship” is not the same thing as “freedom of religion.” The former means that one may believe whatever one wants and worship privately without interference, whereas the latter allows one freedom to live in the world at large consistent with one’s faith tenets, even if they are not endorsed by the state.

I think this is an important point, for the attack on freedom of worship will be made through the freedom of religion.  Once believers are marginalized institutionally it will be much easier to persecute them for their worship.  On a broad theoretical level, it illustrates the conquest of liberalism by progressives.  In America, of course, the terms are effectively interchangeable, because American leftists have alternated between the two in attempts to buff up their image.  However, in the broad historical and theoretical sense, they are opposed.  Liberalism, despairing of enacting civil society upon shared belief in a unifying worldview, allows great freedom to individuals and groups to pursue their own visions of the good provided that they keep the peace.  Progressivism, in contrast, seeks to enact a particular vision of social and political goods upon society, and embraces the use of government power to bring about its goals.  Modern American leftists oscillate between these two approaches, but not in any principled way.  Rather, their approach is progressive when they have power, liberal when they don’t.  Thus, if politicians seek to rein in anti-American sentiments in college classrooms, the Left is full of liberal rhetoric about freedom of speech and expression.  But these same leftists will do everything they can to squash conservative expressions and speech on campus.  At heart they lack even the principles of an ideologue and are entirely given over to their own will to power.

A vision of adolescence

After a relentless campaign from the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) the Komen Foundation has caved and will continue to support Planned Parenthood.  There are plenty of observations to be made, but what I find most interesting is the motivation for the viciousness of the Left’s response.  It wasn’t the money–the 700k/year or so at stake wasn’t that important to Planned Parenthood’s budget, and they made plenty by fundraising off the controversy.  Rather, it was the symbolism of cutting off funding for America’s largest abortion provider (at well over a quarter million abortions a year) that infuriated them so. The rightness of abortion on demand is not to be questioned.

Why value abortion so highly?  Because it is necessary to their vision of the good life, a vision that is of a very specific kind of personal autonomy.  It is a vision of an extended and idealized adolescence.  The world the left imagines is one where all the important stuff is taken care of by someone else.  Thus, they don’t object to the government managing everything from education to health care to the economy.  The basics are provided, though there is left space for some to achieve higher honors and rewards (today’s Left is not really egalitarian).  Marriage, and especially children, rather than being a natural part of life, are treated as another consumer good or lifestyle decision.  Freedom means indulging one’s tastes, especially sexually, without consequences.  Economic freedom is uninteresting in comparison, as is freedom from having government rule your healthcare or education.  Obviously abortion and easy access to contraception are indispensable to this vision.

For an illustration of this vision within the popular culture, consider these Honda ads, where marriage and children are shown as things that can wait until one’s list of slightly goofy-but-still-kinda-cool hipster goals are accomplished.

The vision is one of play.  There are not even the more adult considerations of “I need to be more financially stable” or “I need to finish my schooling” or suchlike.  Rather, it is about putting off adulthood until one is done playing.  One might still have to go to work (just as one had to go to school during one’s real adolescence), but adulthood can still be put off.  Hence the extreme support for abortion, for without it, there isn’t the same assurance that one’s play will not have serious repercussions.