Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Analytics
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

Post by Analytics »

Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
A few weeks later, John and I, along with the other congressional leaders, met with President Obama at the White House to discuss our plan as well as his proposed stimulus bill….
Thanks for the link. What I get out of that is there was an impasse straight out of the gate. Maybe Cantor would have been willing to “negotiate” if that was defined as letting the minority make all of the decisions. But it’s hard to take him completely seriously. After all, Republicans didn’t replace Obamacare with high-risk pools when they got the chance.

In any case, Lee Drutman would cite this as an example of the problems associated with a two-party system where the parties are too coherent and strong—it makes it impossible to negotiate.
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
I responded to what you posted here, not projecting my beliefs about you.
That’s fine. I’m not defensive. I’ll just note that your responses to what I post here consist of making sweeping inferences about my thoughts, outlook, and reading habits based on only a couple posts. I speculate that you do this here because you are accustomed to making such inferences when reading ancient texts.
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
The entire conceptual framework of "social contract" is a liberal framing of how society works, but it not the objective baseline that you assume it to be. In any case, I fail to see how imposing a burden on nuns to seek out and provide alternative access to a practice they consider abominable and violative of their sense of morality, all to satisfy the convenience of a private insurance company and a vocal activist corner of the Democratic coalition, serves any kind of social contract.
I understand that the government’s accommodation was problematic. My point is logically prior to that. If the nuns don’t what to use birth control because they think it is immoral, then don’t use it. Problem solved.

As an example of my point, say an atheist thinks it is morally abominable to get a lobotomy. If that is what he thinks, don’t get one. Formally demanding that his health insurance carrier carve out lobotomies from covered procedures, and then suing because he thinks it is his moral right to purchase health insurance without that carveout is a stupid of a hill to die on.
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
I also note that, not only did the Supreme Court find this kind of argument unconvincing because it did lead to state violation of the free exercise clause, but your positivist framing of law—we must obey laws, without any consideration of what is just—opens the door to some very unpleasant forms of coercion—lots of historical evidence of that, as I'm sure you're aware.
I’m not making a positivist statement that “we must obey laws.” I’m just saying that there needs to be a little give and take. If, for example, a Jehovah’s Witness thinks it is immoral to give or take a blood transfusion, I think it is fine for a surgeon to try to accommodate that. But he would be being needlessly difficult to demand that his health insurance policy explicitly exclude blood transfusions from covered procedures. Surely in principle you agree with Ginsburg that there ought to be “a balanced approach, one that does not allow the religious beliefs of some to overwhelm the rights and interests of others who do not share those beliefs.” In this particular case, the nuns were acting like petulant schoolchildren.
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
You are clearly unable or unwilling to enter a worldview that is not your own. It is meaningless to you, and you apparently have no problem with the state exercising its coercive power to impose an understanding of the reality you identify with…
Clearly. Being told this about myself makes me think you are a fortune teller at night and on weekends. Do I owe you ten dollars for this insight into myself?
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
That would be the equivalent, as one of the amicus briefs showed, to requiring a conscientious objector to find their replacement to fight a war that they opposed, whereas the burden should be on the state to do that.
That metaphor is missing the more basic point. I agree that the “accommodation” was problematic. What I’m saying is that the accommodation shouldn’t be necessary in the first place. If you don’t want to go to war, don’t go to war. If you don’t want to use birth control, don’t use birth control. That’s all there is to it.
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
Perhaps you think that moral perspective is mistaken or is stupid or is a sign of their pathological inability to accept your view of the world…
Just because I recognize that some views are in fact wrong doesn’t mean I have an inability to empathize with others. Or maybe it does. What do the tarot cards say?
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
My point is that I'm absolutely certain I have biases and blindspots that I am completely oblivious to, and if somebody else has beliefs that contradict my own, they may very well be right. The world is a complex place, and most of what we are talking about are really just models of that reality. And I completely agree with George Box, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

But having said that, some models and viewpoints really are justifiable and some really aren't.
I feel we are making progress now, because in justifying that you worldview is superior, you are implicitly accepting the point that there is something more fundamental, something per-political that is going on.
I’m not saying my worldview is superior. I’m saying my worldview is my worldview.
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
John Gee and Robert Ritner are both extraordinarily intelligent and superlatively educated, but that doesn't mean their views on what Egyptology implies about the Book of Abraham are equally valid. And there are lots of sincere people who don't have elite Egyptology degrees who are completely certain that the Book of Abraham is an accurate translation of an ancient Egyptian document.
I don't think this is analogous at all; but let me ask you: should we ban the publication of books asserting that "the Book of Abraham is an accurate translation of an ancient Egyptian document"? Should it the viewpoint be chased from the public square, in your view?
What makes you think I would possibly be in favor of limiting free speech?
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
Once again, working class people are just as capable of defining their own interests as you are. They don't Obama to explain themselves to themselves or to other people. I don't know why it is so hard for liberals to understand this. Does the social contract only travel in your direction?
Not that it will make any difference to you, but I’ll proclaim for the record that working class people can define their interests as whatever they want to, and that they are completely free to believe whatever they want. Let them worship how, when, and what they may. By the same token, I claim the privilege of having and speaking my own opinions, too. You may think I’m wrong, and I’m certain that sometimes I am.
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
President Obama wrote:… And when Republicans tell them we Democrats despise these things—or when we give these folks reason to believe that we do—then the best policies in the world don’t matter to them.
You this like this answer? I've always found it troubling. This is the same line that successive progressive governments, both Republican and Democrat, have had towards Native Americans and any demographic in the way of their policy aims since after the Civil War. It's a very useful way to justify the application of coercive measures and allocate social control to ends that progressives deem desirable….
Just to be clear, are you telling me that I’m not allowed to have an opinion on what the government should or should not do to promote a more perfect union, because somebody somewhere in America might disagree with me?
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
And I have to wonder: do you apply this consistently in your support of policies or only on domestic issues? For example, don't you think it would be a good idea to bring democracy to the Islamic middle east—a place that clings to guns and religion as few others do? After all, they believe things that are obviously false, and we live in a global society now, with international norms and markets, which are implicit forms of a social contract. Obviously, I'm being mostly facetious here, but if you're willing to endorse state coercion on the basis of worldview within national borders, why not across them?
Just to be clear, the only “state coercion” I’ve endorsed on this thread is letting nuns decide for themselves whether or not they use birth control. I admit it. I am tempted to let all women everywhere decide for themselves whether or not they will use birth control. Maybe I really am a Nazi!
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

Post by Morley »

Physics Guy wrote:
Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:25 pm

Human effort and talent costs are not the only measures of performance, however. Suppose that you start with Faulkner in English and my version is the hieroglyphic one. We both labor for months on our texts; I match your sweat drop for drop. Yet every milestone I reach also corresponds to one you passed long before me. I figured out that first word; so did you, much more quickly. I hammered out the first sentence—you did that faster, too. The crudely parsed English version that I proudly present at the end of my work is the same basic gist that you grasped in the first ten minutes. The insights you attained after that are about questions I have not yet imagined.

By hypothesis for the sake of argument we applied equal effort and skill to our tasks. You came further because my task was harder, not in the impossible sense that it required more effort for the same amount of effort, but in the really possible and quite objective sense that you did everything I did much faster, and did much more than I did.

This I contend is the situation with the natural sciences. The learning curve is steep at the start, in the sense that it is much harder to deliver anything even slightly useful in science than it is in the humanities. Eventually there is an ignition, a takeoff, where the effort pays off and wonders appear. There's a long empty runway before that, where all you're doing is trying to get up to speed with the language. And it's a language that no human learns as a child.

In the end I guess my views are as autobiographical as anyone's. When I started college I planned on doing a double major in physics and English, but I changed my mind when I realized how much better I was at English than physics. I knew full well that I was only an ignorant undergrad in English but my skill in physics, as an undergrad major, was like my skill in English from primary school.

Listening to discussions between colleagues in the humanities and social sciences has always seemed like watching professional teams play, in a sport I've sometimes played in the park. Sometimes it's even like watching a cooking show, where I can believe I could produce something similar, after a few tries and with lots of mess, if I follow them closely. Listening to discussions among chemists or biologists or mathematicians, in contrast, is like watching surgery. I have no idea what all that stuff is except it all looks quite scary and I would not dare to try it.
Thanks, Physics Guy, for your thoughtful reply.

I think you're underestimating what counts as a significant contribution to the arts, social sciences, and humanities. As in physics or biology, most artists or psychologists (for example) have no chance of ever making a meaningful contribution to their disciplines. They know that going in. These disciplines only seem to have an easy learning slope to those watching from the outside, like that of your undergraduate self naïvely deciding that you were really good in English. Perhaps perception of any discipline's rise over run comes down to individual proclivity.

I took chemistry at the University of Utah from the near-great Henry Eyring. He used tell his classes that the so-called hard sciences were relatively simple, orderly, and logical, because there were far fewer variables involved than in the social sciences. This was because, layered on top of chemical reactions, psychology and sociology had to consider the complexities of human biology, behavior, and intent.

So my experience was different than yours. In my inchoate study of biology and chemistry, I found sweet logic. My later, various meanderings into research in the social sciences, was much less so. Likewise, my mathematician wife sees her profession as natural as a stroll down the sidewalk; her other career in banking was, again, much less so.

Running an analysis in SPSS is not like watching a cooking show and coming up with a sloppy approximation of abgoosht.

No, we don't already speak the language of the social sciences from childhood. Just because I know astrology, doesn't mean I have a grounding in astronomy.

.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

Post by Morley »

huckelberry wrote:
Fri Jun 04, 2021 1:02 am

Morley , I can sympathize with your Faulkner comment. I tried to make it through The Bear a number of times over the span of a bunch of years. I finally completed it last fall. Previously I would stop ,emotionally stymied, when the bear stands and disembowels Boon the dog. It was not just feeling for the dog but the sense of darkness that I could not understand . How does this story end with the banging of a train taking the forest and the man beating his rifle raving about ownership? Perhaps there is no understanding of the dark mystery in the story, it works its way into your consciousness.

In college the Kesey book Sometimes a Great Notion had a sort of semicult following. I suggested to an English professor I was on friendly terms with that he read it. He did and said it was interesting but sort of derived from the Bear and not really as good. Now I can see what he saw. In the Bear is a revealing of a corrosive power like the river in Sometimes a Great Notion. (I liked the Kesey book enough that I was horrified by the movie turning the darkness of Northwest rain into a sunny California day and loosing the dark dimension in the story)

Ok I still have not finished all of the Go Down Moses stories. A couple of years ago I started "Was" and was blocked on the second page with the announcement:"discovering that Tommy's Turl had run again". Perhaps I am slow but , what is a Turl? I tried looking in google. no turls. I gave up on the story for a while thinking for all I know its southern talk for a goat or perhaps a batch of boiled turnip greens. Ok I finally figured out that Turl was Tommy's slave.
It may be that Faulkner uses mystry as a weapon.
Ha! Thank you, Huck, for reminding me of all this! I love your assessments.

I always thought Sometimes a Great Notion was to Cuckoo's Nest, what Heller's Something Happened was to Catch 22. I found myself disappointed, mostly because I'd so loved the earlier works.

.
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

Post by Physics Guy »

Morley wrote:
Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:37 pm
I think you're underestimating what counts as a significant contribution to the arts, social sciences, and humanities.
I don't think so: I think I'm just not talking about anyone making significant contributions to anything. By definition what counts as a significant contribution is measured by how much humans have achieved so far. So apart from fields in which very little has yet been attempted, in which it may be easy to get in on the ground floor, and fields in which there is nothing further to be done, it is by definition equally hard to make a significant contribution in any field of human endeavour.

This discussion of sciences and humanities began over the issue of whether education in science should have been prioritised as much as it has in recent decades. Early in it I brought up C.P. Snow's acceleration/reading and Shakespeare/entropy comparisons. So this was about rudimentary education in a subject, so as to be able to understand and appreciate it and maybe do useful work applying it in business or something, not about contributing new content to the subject.

In my own field of theoretical physics there is one big step: you need to understand differential equations—what they mean and what it means to solve them. If you have that understanding, then I think that in a few paragraphs at most an expert could bring you pretty well up to speed on just about any subject in physics. You might not be able to contribute original research yourself but you really would grasp the latest advances and controversies competently, after just a page or two—given that you started with a grasp of differential equations.

Conversely, if you don't understand differential equations then there is nothing that you can read or hear that will really give you even the gist of even undergrad physics. You can watch videos or read gee-whiz books but you shouldn't kid yourself that you know even basically what the stuff is about. Any intuitive picture you can form is likely to be badly misleading.

Learning about differential equations is by no means a superhuman feat. I'd say it's easier than learning Latin well enough to read Caesar, for instance, assuming the normal range of mathematical and linguistic aptitudes. And once you've got that under your belt, you've got a sort of club membership card for all of physics that makes everything available at low cost. I don't think there's anything in physics that will daunt you, at that point, the way understanding Heidegger can be a whole new mountain to climb after understanding, say, Aquinas. So my point is not at all about how much harder physics is than philosophy.

My point is that there is this one big step, before which you have practically nothing in physics, and after which you have practically everything. What comparable step is there in the humanities? I think there is one: reading itself. Not the difference between third-grade reading level and college-level, but between reading at all and not being able to read.

The greater accessibility of the humanities, the comparatively low entry cost before you can begin to get something meaningful out of a subject, is by no means a weakness that anyone should try to minimise or deny. On the contrary I think that it's an unbeatable knock-down argument for supporting education and research in the humanities. I think it's competitive as an argument with the scientific claim to producing useful technology. In fact it's a similar claim: one delivers products that everyone can use and enjoy without having to understand all the fine details.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

Post by Morley »

Physics Guy wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:42 am
In my own field of theoretical physics there is one big step: you need to understand differential equations—what they mean and what it means to solve them. If you have that understanding, then I think that in a few paragraphs at most an expert could bring you pretty well up to speed on just about any subject in physics. You might not be able to contribute original research yourself but you really would grasp the latest advances and controversies competently, after just a page or two—given that you started with a grasp of differential equations.
I've no background in theoretical physics, nor even in the non-theoretical kind, but I'm sure what you say is true.
Physics Guy wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:42 am
Conversely, if you don't understand differential equations then there is nothing that you can read or hear that will really give you even the gist of even undergrad physics. You can watch videos or read gee-whiz books but you shouldn't kid yourself that you know even basically what the stuff is about. Any intuitive picture you can form is likely to be badly misleading.

Learning about differential equations is by no means a superhuman feat. I'd say it's easier than learning Latin well enough to read Caesar, for instance, assuming the normal range of mathematical and linguistic aptitudes. And once you've got that under your belt, you've got a sort of club membership card for all of physics that makes everything available at low cost. I don't think there's anything in physics that will daunt you, at that point, the way understanding Heidegger can be a whole new mountain to climb after understanding, say, Aquinas. So my point is not at all about how much harder physics is than philosophy.
Learning Latin to read Caesar would come under the heading of humanities. Once you've got Latin under your belt, you've got a sort of club membership card for all of classical studies. Well, if you learn Ancient Greek, too.
Physics Guy wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:42 am
My point is that there is this one big step, before which you have practically nothing in physics, and after which you have practically everything. What comparable step is there in the humanities? I think there is one: reading itself. Not the difference between third-grade reading level and college-level, but between reading at all and not being able to read.

Earlier in our back-and-forth, you asked for the recognition of a distinction between elementary arithmetic and mathematics. Why not the same respect for the difference between basic reading and literacy? Certainly 'reading at all' is not going to deliver any kind of rudimentary understanding of criminal law. Or philosophy. Or economics. Or poetry (argh, poetry). Or of anything worth studying. Each is going to take training in critical thinking and a literacy that is deeper than just the ability to read.

Physics also requires reading. What you seem to be saying is that physics and other science need something more: Both Reading and Math! Then again, perhaps you’re saying that physics doesn’t require the same kind of critical reading and reasoning that other disciplines do. Somehow I doubt that.

Different disciplines have different comparable steps. You've winnowed theoretical physics from the rest of science to make your argument for the necessity of comprehending differential equations. (Not all of science is so reliant on that understanding of differential equations, but let's go with it.) I'd venture that many areas outside of science have a specialized knowledge that's required before a rudimentary understanding is achieved.

Besides what I mentioned earlier, off the top of my head, here are what I hope are a couple more:

If one seeks a basic understanding of physical therapy, it's essential to have a functioning knowledge of anatomy. Hands-on anatomy, not words-in-book anatomy.

Understanding art requires an aesthetic not generated solely (nor even mainly) by simple reading. Looking at art or appreciating art are not the same as a rudimentary understanding of art. On the other hand, if you're going to have a basic understanding of Contemporary Art, you also need to know Critical Theory. I'd say you have no hope without it. (Discussions on this board prove that understanding Critical Theory is not achieved by demonstrating a basic skill in reading.)

To have a basic comprehension of Persian culture, one must know Islam and Zoroastrianism. This does not come from cursory reading. Not everything in the humanities can be learned by reading. Westerners' belief that they understood the culture led to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état and all the policy debacles that followed.

One learns music by, um, doing music (much like one learns math by doing math). To learn music you don't need reading or math. The comparable step of equations to physics for music, is music.

Reading of any caliber is not the gateway drug to figuring out modern dance.

The ability to kind of understand experimental psychology requires functional knowledge of probability theory and statistics.

To understand Medieval literature in Britain, a relationship with Old English is essential.

Foreign language training isn't accomplished just through reading, as you already know. I don't know when the 'aha!' moment occurs, but in my experience, it doesn't come through reading.

Blah. Blah. Blah. Ha! I should stop here, before I descend into utter gibberish.

Be well.

.
User avatar
Symmachus
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:53 pm
Location: Unceded Lamanite Land

Re: Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

Post by Symmachus »

A very passionate performance, Analytics. A bit puzzling, though.
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
I speculate that you do this here because you are accustomed to making such inferences when reading ancient texts.
Maybe you should apply some data analysis to that speculation.

I find this kind of funny because in discussions of ancient texts I'm always accused of taking them too literally and not making sweeping inferences.

The OP is about is how the how ideological differences are related to a coarsening not just of public discourse but of the quotidian interaction between people. Then followed a series of posts enacting the thing they also purport to condemn, and in any case none of the posts, it seemed to me, attempted to understand it outside of crass partisan terms. To my view—that these are fundamentally cultural disputes, resulted from conflicting worldviews, fragmentary remains of a shattered national identity—you push back, using a political dispute as an example that, you argued, really showed just how craven Republicans are, and this was supposed to build a stronger base for the interpretation that this is really about politics, the vulgar propaganda munchers supporting the corrupt Republicans being the main culprit, with a carve-out for a few "principled" and "thoughtful" hyper-educated people. You state that nuns who are morally opposed to the burden placed on them by the previous administration are petulant school children, desperate to be offended—"they shouldn't take birth control if they don't want to" shows you don't understand their complaint at all—that conservatism is the result of a brain issue and/or a psychological inability to accept modernity, that guns and religion are mere coping mechanisms— people can't have a pre-existing attachment to guns and religion?—and that Republican politicians, except for the the thoughtful and principled ones who agree with you, deploy their unscrupulous hate-mongers to whip up anger with their propaganda machines among these people to satisfy their lust for wealth and power. And this has created a tribalism that is tearing the country apart. And of course, " There simply isn't an equivalence to this on the left."

I reply that your pet political example illustrating this position is so circular that even the number Pi begs you to reconsider; I'm not drawing inferences about your reading habits, but merely confronting your posted sources, each of which comes with self-serving narratives constructed by your side. All of that is beside the point. It's not that I'm skeptical of their claims, even though they're obviously agenda-driven, but posting this is merely delaying the question or distracting from it. The question, for me, is not "which side had a more respectable approach to the procedural and political enactment of the ACA" but "how far does the dispute reflect something deeper than policy disagreements?" It is clear to me that by now, there is very little even in the realm of policy that is merely policy (at least on substantive policy).

If I were to speculate, I would suggest that you are engaging in the sort of performative rationality one sees in political arguments that are basically emotive, not an actual discussion of what I'm talking about.

In any case, as regards the critical race theory stuff, a lot of this reminds me of 2009: "what? we're not doing anything controversial! all of the outrage is generated by propaganda outlets and people who eat this up are rubes! what we are doing is popular, and ok fine, even if it is not popular, it is necessary medicine that society needs to swallow."

Imagining the ACA and the public's response to it that way worked out great in the midterms and led to 10 years of national unity, didn't it? At least we got the ACA though. It's hard to see what Democrats will get in exchange this time.

Keep blaming Fox News, though.
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
That’s fine. I’m not defensive. I’ll just note that your responses to what I post here consist of making sweeping inferences about my thoughts, outlook, and reading habits based on only a couple posts.
Not defensive? I take what you say at face value, and then you come back to tell me I shouldn't do that, and now you are complaining that I'm inferring too much. If you say X several times, and I criticize X harshly, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do when you tell me that I'm not accounting for the fact that you also think Y and Z and several other letters of the alphabet, and that I'm thus making sweeping inferences about you by focusing on X, which is the only thing you've posted. The position that you staked out and to which I have been responding is that there is a tribalism in US politics resulting primarily from the Republican manipulation of voters through their propaganda machines that spew hate, all for the pursuit of power and wealth, which you derive from game theory or something. And I must respect this view because you post some links from the Atlantic and President Obama's memoir, which I guess is supposed to be an official record of the Truth and not part of an legacy-building agenda in its own right. So I respond to these things you post, but I am at fault for inferring too much because you donated to a "thoughtful" Republican and had a lunch with a big wig think-tank conservative who broadly agrees with you on Obamacare. I'm supposed to just piece together your more complex view of conservatives from that? I'm not able to infer nearly as much as you would like me to.
I understand that the government’s accommodation was problematic. My point is logically prior to that. If the nuns don’t what to use birth control because they think it is immoral, then don’t use it. Problem solved.
Again, you respond to me as if we are discussing the merits of the case. I'm not arguing that point. I'm suggesting it as a representation of an overtly cultural aggression that extends beyond the policy sphere and hence isn't primarily partisan—unless you endorse the state's promotion of that worldview. I take from your comments that you do, though apparently you prefer that I take nothing from your comments one way or the other.

Perhaps you skipped over my summary of the case, but—at the risk of inferring too much from your words—your "problem solved" suggests that you don't understand what the issue even was in a case that went through the courts for 10 years.

The issue was whether a rather large organization run by nuns (but not necessarily staffed by nuns) should be required to find substitute means by which their staff, many of whom are not nuns, could access birth control, which the nuns consider immoral. It is thus equivalent to requiring the conscientious objector to produce his or her replacement, which is effectively violating the reason for which they conscientiously object in the first place (rather than objecting because they don't want to, or because they have better things to do, or because they are too busy). Or, to your example, it would be equivalent to requiring the atheist who refuses to pay for other people's lobotomies to find another means by which those lobotomies will be paid for. The objection, though, is to lobotomy, not the means of its funding necessarily, right? So in both cases, the burden is on the atheist who objects on the basis of morality to lobotomies to ensure that lobotomies are performed one way or another.

In any case, this wasn't the result of the ACA itself but rather with the rules and regulations necessitated by the ACA and promulgated by HHS in the implementation of the ACA. The Obama administration could have made a rule to accommodate this but chose not to, opting instead to sue to force compliance. Why do you think that was? The Trump administration simply changed the rules, but a couple of states run by Democrats then decided to sue and take the nuns to court on the grounds that the APA had been violated, which is why it went to the Supreme Court (there were other cases related to this, so I'm simplifying here and operating from memory). They could have just let it go, but chose not to. I wonder why that was. Supposing you were a nun with a deep Catholic belief, or a Catholic who subscribed to the magisterium of the Holy Church, what would you infer about why first the federal government and then some state governments chose to take the nuns to court rather than simply change the rule? This is by no means the only example of government agencies hounding various groups rather than making easy accommodations.

On the other hand, according to my thesis, these supposedly partisan fights are about something deeper at issue. I think the nuns' position, whether one agrees with it or not, is pretty clear: they want nothing to do with birth control, even indirectly, not least because it could entail abortifacients, which, in their moral universe, renders them accomplices to murder. As to the government's position, though: why is the state so insistent that birth control be, in Ginsburg's words in her dissent, to "preserve women’s continued access to seamless, no-cost contraceptive coverage"? Perhaps she had a technical reason for that to do with precedent, but even so, those precedents resulted from the state's intrusion into this sphere of life: so why is that something the state cares about so deeply in the first place? It is not obvious that government is responsible for ensure birth control access, and from a certain angle is really kind of bizarre. What are the limits of that interest? It's not clear. However blurry the definition of that line, it clearly has moved in one direction. Whatever your or my level of support for the government's position on this at the time, it is a position informed by a set of assumptions about sexuality, the body, and the family (and especially its relation to the state) that are completely different from, and even antithetical towards, those of not just the Little Sisters of the Poor but also those of vast swathes of American society (and widely beyond it), even if it is not a majority.

There is no such thing as a neutral position, so when you approve of state enforcement of an interpretation of the ACA that creates this burden, you are supporting the imposition of a moral view of this question on people who don't share it. I conclude you have sympathy with that view from your comments. And it is more pointed than something like 19th century polygamy, because it is not barring fellow citizens from engaging in a practice but compelling them to take an action. I use it as an example of a political issue that has resulted from the shift of plate tectonics of the culture, but there an increasing number of these kinds of issues. The masterpiece cake shop is another such absurdity that is fundamentally about deploying state power to enforce a worldview, as was the Fulton case. There are more and more of these cases popping up.
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
You are clearly unable or unwilling to enter a worldview that is not your own. It is meaningless to you, and you apparently have no problem with the state exercising its coercive power to impose an understanding of the reality you identify with…
Clearly. Being told this about myself makes me think you are a fortune teller at night and on weekends. Do I owe you ten dollars for this insight into myself?
Like all great fortune tellers, I work by essentially regurgitating back to you what you say. You are welcome to correct me, but the only adjustment you have posted here to your caricatures of conservatives spread across your various posts is the assurance that you understand that the world is complex, and the indication of that is that you respect a couple of the "principled" and "thoughtful" ones that you had lunch with and donated money to.

But you get a discount here, because I leave the option open as to whether you are unable or unwilling, and "apparently" invites correction, if there is one. "Meaningless" was a reference to the analogy I discussed and you had just quoted back to me. Perhaps I should have put quotes around it. Your comments clearly imply throughout that you do not consider the motivations behind the case to have any merit, independent of the case's merit. I'm not sure which sentence you wrote that should lead me to think otherwise, but please show me if I missed it. I see no evidence at all from any sentence that you have posted here that you understand the position of, for example, the nuns: "petulant schoolchildren" who are "desperate to be offended." Taking your preferred approach, I wonder if a brain scan might reveal something about their physiology that could explain this petulance. Maybe they watched a lot of Fox news. Or maybe they are just variables in a massive data set, and perhaps their obstinance can be factored out through some mathematically technique that can be instantiated in policy. Who knows?
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
Perhaps you think that moral perspective is mistaken or is stupid or is a sign of their pathological inability to accept your view of the world…
Just because I recognize that some views are in fact wrong doesn’t mean I have an inability to empathize with others. Or maybe it does. What do the tarot cards say?
I have to squint to see the empathy in posting a link to a pseudo-scientific study suggesting that conservatives have some kind of brain deficiency, and I really strain my eyes to see it in your description of nuns who are "desperate...to be offended" and act "like petulent schoolchildren," or in the case of conservatives who have some kind of "psychological reluctance to embrace a complicated modern world" or the apparent assumption that they "vote against their interest." Never mind the Republicans and their "propaganda machine" and "manipulators without conscience," which "does not have an equivalent" on your side. It's hard to see empathy from language like this and the positions you take. I grant that you carve out a space of respect for elite Republicans, quite disconnected from conservative voters, that you deem thoughtful and principled (because why?) and who oppose Donald Trump (what exactly is thoughtful about Evan McMullin? Kind of curious). Maybe that constitutes empathy with voters who despise those people; I genuinely don't know.

But I'm not talking about empathy anyway; I haven't said anything about empathy. Obama was trying to be empathetic—that is, to use the imagination to try to access how someone else feels—but the passages you quoted aren't really instructive, even if they are empathetic. His reason for why voters oppose him is actually circular: it's because they oppose him. But he's feels for them all the same because no administration, including his own, gives them much alternative to guns and religion. I am just trying to see if you even understand their view (hence, worldview). But if your approach to the case I was discussing is to dismiss it with "don't want birth control? don't use it" and dismiss the rest then I don't know how I am supposed to see that you understand where they were coming from and why that case was important, even if you have deep but unexpressed empathy for them that comes from your complex understanding of things, and understanding that lies behind your simplistic caricatures.
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm

I feel we are making progress now, because in justifying that you worldview is superior, you are implicitly accepting the point that there is something more fundamental, something per-political that is going on.
I’m not saying my worldview is superior. I’m saying my worldview is my worldview.
So one worldview is just as good as another? What was your point of then going on talk about valid viewpoints then? My comment was a response to this:
some models and viewpoints really are justifiable and some really aren't.
So is one worldview just as valid as another or not? I assumed—and here I am guilty—that you believed yours was one of the justifiable ones. Is it? In light of the claim I've been making, how should I interpret "Just because I recognize that some views are in fact wrong"? I take that to mean that you think some views are wrong, and since this occurs in a discussion about a government action that I claim is fundamentally a clash of worldviews, and you appear to support that action, I conclude that you think the other side of that action has a wrong view, particular in the words you use characterize the actions of those who hold them in this case. I am really making a sweeping inference here? I am genuinely confused about where I have misunderstood you.
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
Symmachus wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:30 pm
I don't think this is analogous at all; but let me ask you: should we ban the publication of books asserting that "the Book of Abraham is an accurate translation of an ancient Egyptian document"? Should it the viewpoint be chased from the public square, in your view?
What makes you think I would possibly be in favor of limiting free speech?
For some reason you introduced the Book of Abraham in a follow-up discussion on the moral position of the nuns, this one about ways of viewing the world:
some models and viewpoints really are justifiable and some really aren't
I interpreted your Book of Abraham example to be a more immediate and relatable case to instruct me as to why, despite your appreciation of the world's complexity, some views really are more justifiable and are actually correct. Coming as it did in a discussion about the views of conservative voters and in particular the nuns, I wondered, perhaps sweepingly, that since you appear to accept that nuns should be compelled to yield on their viewpoint, which you think is wrong, why not the people who write about the Book of Abraham, which you use as an example of a demonstrably wrong conception? If it's a question of law, the nun's case was a 1st Amendment one that their view and the exercise of it was protected by law, just as John Gee's is. Maybe I don't understand why you brought the Book of Abraham up.
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
I’ll proclaim for the record that working class people can define their interests as whatever they want to, and that they are completely free to believe whatever they want. Let them worship how, when, and what they may.
Ok, so do working class people vote against their own interests? I don't want to infer. In telling me you like his answer, it seems reasonable to conclude that you accept the premise of the question. Maybe that's another sweeping inference I've made.
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
Identifies as Romani wrote:You this like this answer? I've always found it troubling. This is the same line that successive progressive governments, both Republican and Democrat, have had towards Native Americans and any demographic in the way of their policy aims since after the Civil War. It's a very useful way to justify the application of coercive measures and allocate social control to ends that progressives deem desirable….
Just to be clear, are you telling me that I’m not allowed to have an opinion on what the government should or should not do to promote a more perfect union, because somebody somewhere in America might disagree with me?
I'm telling you why I don't like Obama's answer, just to be clear. That's what it looks like to me when I reread it. I don't see what your question has to do with what I wrote.
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
Just to be clear, the only “state coercion” I’ve endorsed on this thread is letting nuns decide for themselves whether or not they use birth control.
I guess I was mislead by what appeared to be your support of a previous administration's pursuit of an entity that didn't want to be coerced by the state to do something it considered immoral under the claim that the exercise of its view was protected by the state's own law. Should I infer that you don't support the government's action from your comments? I don't want to be sweeping.
Analytics wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:16 am
Maybe I really am a Nazi!
Were you accused of being a Nazi? Talk about sweeping inference! I am confused.
In any case, Lee Drutman would cite this as an example of the problems associated with a two-party system where the parties are too coherent and strong—it makes it impossible to negotiate.
Too coherent? It's the exact opposite. There is no balance between the various parts of a coalition that make each party, with one small faction dominating the others. What are their coherent positions they actually push? Too strong? Chuck Schumer, the most pro-Israeli senator in the senate who got elected to congress in the first place by promising would-be constituents that his top priority was to support Israel can't bring himself to say a single thing while Israel is compared to Hamas. I doubt he's changed his mind: but he knows that he's not as a powerful as a majority leader would have been 20 years ago. The problem is exactly the opposite: sure, leaders have a tighter grip on the procedural levers, but the parties are too weak to discipline their membership. I wonder whether Drutman's proposed solutions for this problem he imagines will rely on increasing the power of the state to manage elections, and whether that power will be constituted in democratic fashion or by an unelected board. Usually, "The parties are too strong" argument is really about "my party is not able to implement their sweeping agenda under the current system, so I want a new system."

That is one reason I am skeptical of skepticism of the two-party system; another is that it is not really a two-party system anyway. The two-parties are the most practical mechanism you have for a country as heterogeneous and as large as the United States. Parliamentary systems in smaller and more homogeneous democracies have the same result: they form coalitions to form governments. But the two-party system has kept those coalitions relatively stable as compared to parliamentary systems. I guess what I'm saying is, if we had more parties, they would have to coalesce in order to mount a national campaign anyway (in the case of the presidency) and would have to form coalitions to get bills passed in the legislative branch (for congressional elections). It would be a giant Rube Goldberg machine, reproducing with great complexity something that we already have in a more direct form. That's my suspicion, anyway. And why does someone like Drutman assume we won't turn out to be like Israel or Italy? Or the UK? When it comes to issues that result from deep cultural divisions, I don't see parliamentary systems as any less "partisan" at all. And anyway, what is the optimal state of partisanship that political scientists like Drutman will allow for the rest of us, and on what grounds? I'm sure no agenda or assumptions about what society should look like goes into the medicine they would like to prescribe for the system that governs the lives of 330 million people.
(who/whom)

"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
—B. Redd McConkie
Analytics
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

Post by Analytics »

Symmachus wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:17 pm
Maybe you should apply some data analysis to that speculation....
Perhaps, LOL.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this post. There are a lot of issues. What is the nature of the cultural divide in the country? Is the cultural divide rightly considered a problem? How much of people's thoughts and feelings are a result of a priori American values, and how much are driven by the siloed media and doom loops? Is a two-party system a good thing or a bad thing? Is government now functioning? If not, why not? If not, is one side more to blame than the other? Or are all sides equally wrong? Or is it wrong to ask that question? Are there multiple valid ways of thinking about this? Does Lee Drutman's book Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy In America have any ideas that are worthwhile to consider, or can the book be dismissed based on the title alone? If I give an example of a thoughtful Conservative to prove that I think Conservatives can be thoughtful, does that imply that I think my example is the only thoughtful Conservative thing that exists?

In that quote from Obama's memoir that I quoted, which clause is more salient? The one where Democrats presumed that their policies really were in the best interest of working class people of Pennsylvania? Or the one where Obama said "And when Republicans tell them we Democrats despise [faith, or hunting, or blue-collar work, or more traditional notions of family and community.]—or when we give these folks reason to believe that we do—then the best policies in the world don’t matter to them."?

I suppose I could go reply to your post sentence-by-sentence, carefully evaluating them in the context of everything that has been said. I could concede the points where I think you are right, clarify things I've said that you may have misunderstood, and argue about the things where I think you are wrong. But that just isn't that appealing to me right now. It's odd, because on their own, all of the issues are interesting. It's just that when they are couched in terms of justifying the things you've called me rather than talking about the ideas on their own merits, it becomes tedious.
Analytics
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

Post by Analytics »

Symmachus wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:17 pm
I understand that the government’s accommodation was problematic. My point is logically prior to that. If the nuns don’t what to use birth control because they think it is immoral, then don’t use it. Problem solved.
Again, you respond to me as if we are discussing the merits of the case. I'm not arguing that point.
I’m not arguing the merits of the case per se. Rather, I’m arguing that the nun’s position on this particular issue seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how health insurance works, how taxation works, how employment works, and the compromises we all have to make in order to get along with each other. Given their values, it is hard for me to see how this would be the hill they rationally decide to die on.
Symmachus wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:17 pm
I'm suggesting it as a representation of an overtly cultural aggression that extends beyond the policy sphere and hence isn't primarily partisan—unless you endorse the state's promotion of that worldview.
Whether it constitutes overt cultural aggression depends upon how you frame the issue. I concede that they see it that way, but I can’t help but believe that there are ulterior political motives surrounding this—Republicans want to stick it to Democrats, so they spread their vitriol and misinformation to rile up their base, and the Little Sisters got carried away in the riptide. I can’t say whether the Little Sisters are political pawns, sincere victims of misinformation, or are disingenuously using this issue for broader political objectives in the cultural war that is continuously being billowed by the right. Or maybe they sincerely don’t think they need to make any compromises to get along in society and that none of the rules apply to them?
Symmachus wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:17 pm
Perhaps you skipped over my summary of the case, but—at the risk of inferring too much from your words—your "problem solved" suggests that you don't understand what the issue even was in a case that went through the courts for 10 years.
I wasn’t addressing the specific legal issues of the case. I was trying to briefly explain why I can’t fathom how a nun who understands health insurance would think this is a hill worth dying on.
Symmachus wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:17 pm
On the other hand, according to my thesis, these supposedly partisan fights are about something deeper at issue. I think the nuns' position, whether one agrees with it or not, is pretty clear: they want nothing to do with birth control, even indirectly, not least because it could entail abortifacients, which, in their moral universe, renders them accomplices to murder. As to the government's position, though: why is the state so insistent that birth control be, in Ginsburg's words in her dissent, to "preserve women’s continued access to seamless, no-cost contraceptive coverage"? Perhaps she had a technical reason for that to do with precedent, but even so, those precedents resulted from the state's intrusion into this sphere of life: so why is that something the state cares about so deeply in the first place? It is not obvious that government is responsible for ensure birth control access, and from a certain angle is really kind of bizarre….
Here is my perspective. The ACA was created in an attempt to provide universal health coverage to all Americans. Contraceptives is a legitimate item to be included in such a plan. Unfortunately, the plurality of Americans who already received health financing through employer insurance like it, or at least are scared that anything else would be worse. In order to make the ACA politically viable, they made the ill-advised compromise to design it in a way that encourages continued employer-financed health insurance. That is unfortunate. Employers should pay employees with money, not health insurance benefits. But our system is the messy, far from ideal solution that our democratic process arrived at to solve a legitimate issue.

The Little Sisters have about 600 employees. Their health insurance plan falls into the category of large group insurance. The insurance company sets up the plans benefits, adjuvates claims, and pays benefits. But the actual cost of claims is born directly by the Little Sisters themselves. Of their 600 employees, how many use birth control? 30, maybe? Of those, how many get coverage through their spouse’s health plan? 10? That means we are talking about 20 women using birth control, which might be a cost of about $400 a month, compared to perhaps $500,000 a month for other health benefits.

If Little Sisters offers this benefit to their employees, the $400 a month for birth control comes out of the health insurance premium Little Sisters pay. If they don’t, the $400 a month for birth control comes out of the payroll checks that Little Sisters pay. For the life of me, if they think birth control is so freakin evil, why would they hire a reprobate that uses it? Make their employees promise not to use birth control a la the Mormon Church’s requirement that BYU professors swear they don’t drink coffee. Problem solved—even if the benefit is in their plan, they wouldn’t be paying a dime for services that their members don’t use.

If they are willing to have birth control users work for them, why is it moral for Little Sisters to pay for birth control through payroll, but immoral for them to pay for it through insurance premiums? They think it is okay for Little Sisters to pay for contraception, as long as it is with after-tax dollars? From my point of view, the moral outrage just isn’t commensurate with what the harm. If Quakers in America have to grudgingly pay income taxes, a huge percentage of which is used to finance an immoral war machine, why can’t Catholics just grudgingly pay for contraception benefits in their health plan, which is an infinitesimally small part of the premium?

Their moral indignation just isn't commensurate.
User avatar
Symmachus
Valiant A
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:53 pm
Location: Unceded Lamanite Land

Re: Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

Post by Symmachus »

Analytics wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:59 pm
It's just that when they are couched in terms of justifying the things you've called me rather than talking about the ideas on their own merits, it becomes tedious.
I, the "fortune teller," haven't called you anything.
If they are willing to have birth control users work for them, why is it moral for Little Sisters to pay for birth control through payroll, but immoral for them to pay for it through insurance premiums? They think it is okay for Little Sisters to pay for contraception, as long as it is with after-tax dollars? From my point of view, the moral outrage just isn’t commensurate with what the harm. If Quakers in America have to grudgingly pay income taxes, a huge percentage of which is used to finance an immoral war machine, why can’t Catholics just grudgingly pay for contraception benefits in their health plan, which is an infinitesimally small part of the premium?

Their moral indignation just isn't commensurate.
"Why can't Catholics just grudgingly..." is a bit cringey, but:

it is because you don't share their view that this immoral. Within their moral universe, the indignation is entirely commensurate. When it comes to abortifacients, that is a form of murder for them. It would be one thing if they were running an abortion clinic while pushing this view, but they're not. And they have no way of knowing or controlling what their employees do with the income they receive: it seems they are perfectly happy to let people who want to use birth control do so. But why should they pay for it? Their view, as I have studied it, is that there is a difference between dollars (taxes) that are extracted and spent by another party (the government) and dollars that they themselves are compelled to spend. The issue is one of being compelled to act against one's conscience. Whether it is only 1 person or 30 or 600 that is affected by that is immaterial, and whether it is inconvenient for an amoral insurance company is totally irrelevant. Insurance companies were made for people and not people for insurance companies.

I'm sure on a moral issue that you care deeply about, you'd take the same line.

All I'm trying to get you to see is that there is a fundamental conflict here between worldviews, not simply a policy question, and the view of the Obama administration (which is close to the one you express) was not fundamentally more evidenced based nor more rational than theirs because these are value questions, and such considerations don't apply. The Obama administration could easily have implemented the rule change that eventually came about and is still in place, but chose to pursue the case. This is one example, but there are many, many more.

You get closer to the issue here:
Analytics wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:59 pm
I can’t say whether the Little Sisters are political pawns, sincere victims of misinformation, or are disingenuously using this issue for broader political objectives in the cultural war that is continuously being billowed by the right. Or maybe they sincerely don’t think they need to make any compromises to get along in society and that none of the rules apply to them?
How does "I don't want to pay for abortifacients" (or "I don't want to bake a cake for your wedding") = "I don't want to make any compromises and none of the rules apply to me?" Why make such an exaggerated caricature of the other side's perspective? I just don't see why, if one wants to understand an issue in a serious rather than a partisan way, one would frame an issue in such a way that it distorts an alternative view in such a way that it de-legitimizes it.

I would submit to you that for many people the culture war feels to be coming from the other direction—the Right is reacting to something—and that most of those people have no broader objectives. They are not clinging to their religion, just living in a way they have for a very long time. The Little Sisters did nothing different; what was different was that the rules implemented under the ACA regime imposed a new reality on them and for a time denied them any accommodation. Same with the Fulton case. Etc. Etc. Examples abound for those who have eyes to see. Si documentum quaeris, circumspice.

Of course politicians and media companies (but I repeat myself) will exploit such things for profit and power (again, I repeat myself), but that does not mean that the underlying sentiment isn't rooted in something real, something that exists before its emergence as a political tool. I would suggest as well that political exploitation of these issues is not confined to one party at all (why is that baker in Colorado in court yet again? Are there no other confectioners in Colorado?).
(who/whom)

"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
—B. Redd McConkie
Analytics
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

Post by Analytics »

Symmachus wrote:
Wed Jun 23, 2021 5:03 pm
Analytics wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:59 pm
It's just that when they are couched in terms of justifying the things you've called me rather than talking about the ideas on their own merits, it becomes tedious.
I, the "fortune teller," haven't called you anything.
I've started commuting to work again, and I generally listen to A.M. talk radio while driving. What strikes me about these conservatives is how frequently they use the word "they." This morning Glenn Beck was talking about an orchestrated conspiracy that "they" have to take away our stuff. The basic rhythm of the show was "They have the goal of acquiring 30% of the land in America by 2030, and 60% by 2040. They don't care about you. They want to take all of your stuff. They hate America. What are they going to do with the land they are stealing? I'll tell you in 60 seconds..."

In this exchange, I read the word "you" a lot. " e.g. "You are clearly unable or unwilling to enter a worldview that is not your own. It is meaningless to you, and you apparently have no problem with the state exercising its coercive power to impose an understanding of the reality you identify with…

But anyway...
Symmachus wrote:
Wed Jun 23, 2021 5:03 pm
it is because you don't share their view that this immoral. Within their moral universe, the indignation is entirely commensurate. When it comes to abortifacients, that is a form of murder for them. It would be one thing if they were running an abortion clinic while pushing this view, but they're not. And they have no way of knowing or controlling what their employees do with the income they receive: it seems they are perfectly happy to let people who want to use birth control do so. But why should they pay for it? Their view, as I have studied it, is that there is a difference between dollars (taxes) that are extracted and spent by another party (the government) and dollars that they themselves are compelled to spend. The issue is one of being compelled to act against one's conscience....
You really think this world view is entirely consistent with itself?

The president of my former company hated smoking, and had a strict policy that the company would not hire smokers; if you got caught smoking, even in the privacy of your own home, you'd be immediately fired. He was an attorney and knew he could get away with this--smokers are not a protected class. Likewise, non-Mormon scholars teaching at BYU have to promise they will never drink coffee. If they get caught drinking coffee, they are immediately fired.

So if these nuns really think birth control is a form of murder, why not make their employees pledge never to use birth control? Why are they "perfectly happy to let people who want to [murder babies] do so," as long as the Sisterhood is paying for it through payroll benefits rather than health insurance benefits? Do they hate murdering babies less than BYU hates drinking coffee?

If they really think birth control is a form of murder and don't want to pay for it, all they have to do is make their employees sign a statement pledging they won't murder anyone this way. Presuming their employees are honest, this prevents the murders from happening and prevents their funds from being used to finance them.

Saying it is perfectly fine for them to finance murder through payroll but utterly unacceptable to finance it through health insurance premiums just doesn't ring like a well-thought out, sincere position to me.
Symmachus wrote:
Wed Jun 23, 2021 5:03 pm
All I'm trying to get you to see is that there is a fundamental conflict here between worldviews, not simply a policy question, and the view of the Obama administration (which is close to the one you express) was not fundamentally more evidenced based nor more rational than theirs because these are value questions, and such considerations don't apply.
Yes, there is a fundamental conflict between world views. I'm arguing the following things with this example:

1- The Obama administration didn't say reproductive health should be included in the healthcare legislation in order to stick it to conservatives. Rather, it was a sincere, internally consistent policy decision about what is good for America.

2- I admit the following is simply a declaration of my own personal values, but I'll state it for the record: I give enormous deference to the conscience of individuals, but I fundamentally disagree with the concept that corporations are people and that corporations have consciences, and that corporations have natural rights.

3- I totally agree that the Little Sisters of the Poor have a fundamentally different worldview than cosmopolitan Americans. However, when I analyze what they claim their values are, the place where they drew the line here seems arbitrary and not internally consistent. This leads me to believe they are being used as tools in the broader culture war.
Post Reply