We have principles and they don’t
The latest issue of Catholic New York, our diocesan newspaper, features an “Editor’s Report” column by editor-in-chief John Woods titled “A True Religious Freedom Fighter.” It is an account of the Becket Fund’s annual Canterbury Medal dinner, which this year honored “Kevin J. ‘Seamus’ Hasson, founder and president emeritus of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.”
As Woods notes, the Becket Fund (a legal effort to protect religious liberty of all kinds) has taken on a number of lawsuits in protest of the HHS contraception mandate (Woods describes it as “requiring religious institutions to pay for abortion-inducing drugs”).
The column is built around an interview with Hasson, and ends with his assessment of the dire situation for religious freedom in America today.
As he told me, the fight for religious freedom in America is nothing new. The difference is that today’s skirmishes are no longer between “principled people fighting about what the principles should be.” The current battle pits religious freedom versus “hardcore nihilism.”
“It’s certainly gotten much worse under the Obama Administration,” he said.
And that’s the end.
Hardcore nihilism! And Obama had so many people fooled with his “Yes We Can” attitude. That whole “extending health-care-coverage” effort certainly had me thrown off the scent — it turns out the administration is not motivated by a set of principles that occasionally brings it into conflict with religious believers. It’s worse than that: the Obama administration has no principles at all. Makes it very easy to pick a side when you look at it that way. Of course it also makes it awfully hard to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you, but I guess you can’t have everything.
The hierarchy crying wolf is being seen as a juvenile with a non-credible voice. . FOCA was one, Catholic Hospitals/ACA was two, religious liberty is three strikes… and now go sit on the bench .. and don’t make gestures at the ump… you are not a player. .
In philosophical terms nihilism does not mean not having principles. It means being the authors of our own principles because we do not think that any principles possess an objective ontological foundation. Nowadays it is commonly expressed with the sentence “to give meaning to our own lives.” It is the idea that, ultimately, we create our own reality and we do not need to abide by any given system of values reflecting some supernatural order.
It is a very widespread attitude, actually.
Hardcore nihilism, eh?
That sounds worse than relativism and subjectivism.
Apt caption, Mollie: “We have principles and they don’t.”
“Makes it very easy to pick a side when you look at it that way. Of course it also makes it awfully hard to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you, but I guess you can’t have everything.”
But so does characterizing those on the other side as engaging in a “war” (Sec. Sebelius’ words, no their’s) on women (among others), doesn’t it?
Jeff Landry: The term “war” has been used a lot for years to characterize polemical struggles of various kinds.
Years ago, President Johnson famously declared war on poverty.
I’m glad two wrongs make a right here.
FYI – Seamus Hasson received an honorary degree from Notre Dame this past weekend (to go with his 4 actual degrees from ND – ba economics, ba theology, ma theology & jd). Also, unlike the previously mention TMLC, Becket Fund represents ALL religious organizations “from Anglicans to Zoroastrians” in religious liberty cases.
Just a tangential observation: It’s somewhat amazing how many Christians and Christian organizations use this kind of language in opposition to a president who is a Christian convert.
I think there is a war on women going on. I’m just not sure who the different sides are. But trying to deny access to contraception under the guise of “religious liberty” makes it no less an assault.
Mt. Wood has no principles I guess ither than to suck up ti the boss(es.)
Barf!
Tom,
Vista, Head Start, Job Corps, Legal Services Administration…a different kind of warfare.
“I think there is a war on women going on. I’m just not sure who the different sides are. But trying to deny access to contraception under the guise of “religious liberty” makes it no less an assault.”
Since the only issue is who pays for it, I can’t fathom how you can reasonably assert they’re “denying accesss.”. Of course I’d be quickly accused of being glib if I suggested that an easy solution is to choose not to work for the Catholic Church.
But I guess in war one can’t be troubled by details.
Very smart people (women in particular and non-ordained men more and more as time goes on) choose NOT to work for the Catholic church. Too bad because it used to be an honorable place to work.
The ordained and vowed have a choice, but it’s a tough to jump ship on a pension, invested preparation time, and a rather comfortable way of living.
And then, of course, there are those folks who are fighting the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and the people attacking equal pay laws.
Yeah, it’s a war.
Quick, Irene, if you change the target, er topic, no one will notice you didn’t respond to the substance of the point. Forward!
Hey, Jeff, and how about we add this to the target- er- topic: when some of the folks leading the anti-contraception effort (the so-called “religious liberty” campaign) also seem to be driving an initiative to assert control over women religious and have taken it upon themselves to “investigate” the Girl Scouts, one might fairly assume there is in fact a war on women and girls.
Forward, indeed.
Sorry to interrupt, but I thought the point of the conversation was our reactions to Hasson’s “hardcore nihilism” statement.
It’s more or less a given that in a moment of political confrontation, rhetoric (and positions) get polarized. (See: Alinsky, Saul…and before him, Machiavelli, Nicolo…and just about every other political thinker in human history.)
So, it’s not surprising (to me at least) that Hasson would use this kind of rhetoric at this time.
What strikes me as potentially problematic for Hasson and his allies is that people like Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius are so evidently *not* devotees of “hardcore nihilism”. They may be center-left practitioners of early 21st century American politics, and they may be more-or-less observant liberal Christians, but “hardcore nihilists”?
I think the political risk Hasson (and others like him) takes by choosing this particular rhetoric is that the “moderate middle” will eventually conclude that he and his allies are the “extremists”.
Now, that may be a risk he’s willing to take. And he may unify his base more securely by adopting that kind of rhetoric. And I may be wrong. (Maybe the “moderate middle” will conclude he’s right.)
But if he loses, then the decision to have used such rhetoric, will likely make it more difficult for him and for his allies moving forward.
“What strikes me as potentially problematic for Hasson and his allies is that people like Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius are so evidently *not* devotees of “hardcore nihilism”. They may be center-left practitioners of early 21st century American politics, and they may be more-or-less observant liberal Christians, but “hardcore nihilists”?”
The point of the conversation, Luke, was that we’re knocking Hasson (who by all accounts is an intelligent, well-intentioned fellow who believes deeply about the issues to which he’s devoted his legal career (he left a lucrative big-law DC practice to start this Fund), yet ignore the move on our own side that “Makes it very easy to pick a side when you look at it that way. Of course it also makes it awfully hard to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you, but I guess you can’t have everything.”
And Irene – most of the folks involved in the suit(s) against the Administration (as well as the religious liberty issues more broadly) have NOTHING to do with the Girl Scouts. Again, details, details, details.
By the way, Hasson’s group was the one that won the NINE-ZERO Hosanna-Tabor case in last year’s Supreme Court term. So their rhetoric is working where it counts.
Luke Hill: Because Hasson’s view is that he is battling against hardcore nihilism, I suspect that his view of opposing hardcore nihilism will not be shaken or even influenced by a court decision involving the Obama administration’s contraceptive-coverage mandate.
If his team wins the lawsuit, then Hasson will continue to see himself and his group as battling hardcore nihilism.
However, if his group happens to lose this lawsuit, then Hasson will continue to see himself and his group as battling hardcore nihilism.
In short, Hasson sees himself and his group as engaged in a battle of religious liberty versus hardcore nihilism. Hasson’s thought-world is religious liberty versus hardcore nihilism.
@Jeff Landry (5/22, 10:18 am) Thanks for the reply. What’s your reaction to Hasson’s statement?
Jeff, your accusing other people of attempting to change the subject to deflect uncomfortable truths is awfully rich. You’re the one having trouble grasping what this post is actually about; take a little time off to think about it.
This morning, jusr a few minutes ago, I got the morning paper and the headline lopking out talked about the resignations of two top State health officials,One was called in the nextday after a TV interview urging the use of condoms against the now exploding numbers in our State of sexually transmitted diseases among teens.
The reignations were papered over as nothing to do with the question, though the Governor(Martinez) is clearly on record for abstinence only.
Anyone who thinks ths question is just about principle and not about politics and power is being disingenuous.
I am deeply concerned about the dynamics of what happens in my State where one in four women wil be raped during their lifetime.
I am deeply concerned about the continuing tide of domestic violence cases, despite many conferences.
Violence against women continues horrendously, but the religious liberty argument -deeply grounded in politics -is pushed further to the forefront
Hasson? That name rings a bell … David G’s article about the girl scouts included a quote from a Mary Rice Hasson of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. According to the Becket Fund website, Kevin Hasson’s wife’s name is Mary. Is Mary Rice Hasson married to Kevin J Hasson? Another Catholic conservative power couple?
Jim, I saw on another blogsite that Mary Rice Hasson, the outspoken critic of the Girl Scouts, is married to “Seamus” Hasson. I think you’re right.
Bob N. –
Sorry to have to say that I think you’re right. Since the 60s violence against women has not decreased, as the feminists had hoped, but increased! Do you know if there have been studies about the possible causes? And what can be done about it?
In a nation that no longer has rock-hard principles it shares it’s not surprising, and I don’t doubt that that has something to do with the increase. But how to show that highly abstract moral principles or lack thereof actually affect behavior?
“Quick, Irene, if you change the target, er topic, no one will notice you didn’t respond to the substance of the point. Forward!”
Jeff –
Why do you have to make every point a negative personal one? Couldn’t you just say, “Please, Irene, answer the question asked”? Snide responses don’t urge dialogue.
Crlo provided some enlightening words on nihilism: “In philosophical terms nihilism does not mean not having principles. It means being the authors of our own principles because we do not think that any principles possess an objective ontological foundation.”
Unenlightened me is having a hard time applying this to the present situation. Doesnt the religious freedom argument rest an a practical nihilism, ie we are free to believe what others do not believe? t is not the traditional Catholic argument that objective truth always should guide us, but an appeal for fair treatment of all religious beliefs regardless of their ojective truth.
So what is the government to do? If they adopt religious principles, they will be accused of violating the anti establishment cause. If they do not adopt religious principles, they are accused of nihilism.
Put another way, I doubt that the object is to get the government to adopt religious principles. If they did, they could just mandate contraception and ignore dissent. If the effort is to get the governemnt to adopt “an objective ontological foundation” then the argument is about contraception, not religious freedom.
Can someone clarify how the government could not be “nihilist” in applying religious freedom?
@Ann Olivier (5/22, 12:00 pm) I don’t know about the 1960s, but according to this FBI chart (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm), the incidence of rape has declined sharply over the past 40 years (particularly the last 20 years). The same is true for other major crimes (murder, robbery, assault).
There’s a separate conversation we could have about national principles and their rise/decline/change over time. It does seem to me that one of the great victories of the feminist movement over the last 40-50 years is the extent to which violence against women is a matter of public record and public concern. Furthermore, that “sunshine” policy seems to have had a “disinfectant” effect—by reclassifying previously accepted, private behaviors (e.g., wife beating) as criminal public actions with legal and social (and economic) consequences, we now (or so it seems) live in a society in which fewer men attack women than was true of the US 40+ years ago.
” Mary Rice Hasson, the outspoken critic of the Girl Scouts, is married to “Seamus” Hasson. ”
Muslim socialist atheistic extremists, just like Barack Hasson O’Bama?
“@Jeff Landry (5/22, 10:18 am) Thanks for the reply. What’s your reaction to Hasson’s statement?”
It’s not the rhetoric I would employ, but I understand the sentiments about it. I recommend Ross Douthat’s piece on his blog today about liberalism which makes the point I take Hasson to be making.
And in all cases, I find his rhetoric no more outlandish than I do Sec. Sebelius’s comment re: the so-called “war” on women, or the charge made today by Rep. Clyburn that Romney, while working for Bain Capital was engaging in “raping” (verbatim quote) businesses, or that those who disagree with the HHS Mandate and support the suits filed yesterday are just a bunch of GOP Partisans motivated by right-wing ideology, or that pointing out that rhetoric on both sides can be problematic “don’t get it”….
Some time back on the 90′s, while wotking on a manual on issues of sex abuse and domestic violence, we weoked on issues of “cultura; factors” including ethnicity and religion.
The beating of children in some religious quarters or factors of machismo in domestic violence came uo. but the whole chapter was squashed as too controversial.
There has been better dealing with issues of violence against women in some quarters(not so much here in NM in my opinion.)
But often what is ingrained as ‘principle” is counyterproductive in community health issues as we continually see on news debates.
i suspect we’re going to see much thetoric in the poltical atena in this election year (exacerbated I think obviously by Citizens United),
Issues of women’s health and safety are real concerns though – certainly in my neck of the woods -I wonder of there areal questions at ND, say and problems of reporting such and beyond.
See Ross Douthat’s new op-ed about the de facto foundations of American secular ethics. Many seculars admit that their ethics is founded only on their own subjective preferences. Douthat says those preferences are in fact principles they got from Christianity/Judaism. The irony is that the secularists complain about Christian ethics even as their own is actually founded on the Christian principles of the equal of dignity of all humans and the universality of some human rights..
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/what-has-jerusalem-to-do-with-athens/?scp=1&sq=ross%20douthat&st=Search
Jimmy Mac –
I’d say that the political principle of freedom of religion is not founded on the nihilistic principle that there are no principles (itself a self-contradiction) but on the notion that truth is possible but different individuals access different aspects of it, plus the fact that all humans can be wrong, and so toleration is in order.
Our system recognizes both the possibilities and the limits of individual human being’s knowledge.
Ann, complexity,complexity???
Ann,
Are you suggesting that “principles of the equal of dignity of all humans and the universality of some human rights” is an exclusively Christian (or even a Christian) principle?
If we believe that fundamental human rights are God-given, they existed before Christ. Christianity might have (or arguably might not have) defined and embraced them, but it they are universal, they are not dependent upon, nor exclusively the principles of Christians.
No?
Jbruns –
I was talking above about a limited group of people — American secularists — who, though they don’t seem to realize it, did not invent their ethical principles regarding the universal dignity and rights of human beings. Rather they adopted them from the wider culture, specifically from the U. S. Constitution. It has its roots in the Judao-Christian concept of all people being made in God’s image and, therefore, having intrinsic value. This was the explicit idea of John Locke, whose political philosophy grounded the American Declaration of Independence through Thomas Jefferson. Yes, Locke was a man of the Enlightenment, but one of the Enlightenment believers in God.
So the contemporary secularists here can than the Christian/Jewish religion for their ethical preference, though they are not religious themselves.
I just think that the very existence of a publication like Commonweal rebuts the accusation of hard-core nihilism. Not every principled person agrees with every other principled person on all matters. That two parties dispute a matter doesn’t mean that one or the other lacks foundational principles, although a disagreement on a matter of principle may underlie the dispute.
It may be worth recalling from time to time that liberal and conservative Catholics are united in the most important thing: our faith. The contraceptive mandate has the potential to drive grievous splits between faithful believers – it requires that we work harder to maintain our unity. But I reject the notion that support for the contraception mandate is an indication of a nihilist outlook.
It is extremely tempting to denigrate the Christianity of our opponents. Let’s resist the temptation.
I don’t think the comment re: “nihilism” was directed at all people who might come to a different conclusion re: the mandate, and I agree the word is rather strong (like, as I have suggested, “war” or “rape”). But I think his point applies validly to the philosophical basis of contemporary liberalism. If you read Rawls and his progeny, they are quite explicit about the need to “de-nude” our public selves of particularities that cannot be widely shared or justified, and religious claims are included in those items of our selves that we need to shed behind the veil of ignorance. I think as Douthat argues in his piece, to the extent contemporary liberalism has sought to cut off ethical claims from any kind of metaphysical claims, or notions of the “good” or what have you, it is both a betrayal of itself in some ways, and an impoverishment. The same critique has been made consistently by the Popes in the social Encyclicals and is one reason that lies at the heart for the Church’s criticisms of, among other things, laissez faire capitalism.
Maybe we should talk a bit about the meaning of “principle”.
I’d say that in the context we’re considering now that a “principle” is a generalization about a moral value for which evidence or reason(s) is offered. e.g., a human being has intrinsic value (and the reason is because all human beings are made in God’s image. Other generalizations are not about morality or they don’t come with justifications, e..g, I think that rock and roll is just noise. The latter would be about a value, but it is not accompanied by evidence or some other reason. It’s just an opinion in the ordinary sense of “opinion”.
In a wider context we might say that someone is a “person of principle” who in fact has admirable values but just can’t justify them. In this sense your good neighbor might be siad to be persons of principle or “upright” in ordinary language,, but not in the philosophical sense of warranted knowledge..
The last time I heard so much about hard core nihilism I was watching the Big Lebowski.
The shock and awe memes are wearing a bit thin.
JimMK:
you asked a difficult question, of course. I would say two things:
1) The comment about hard core nihilism did not seem to apply to the HHS mandate per se, but rather a broad segment of our culture which in Hasson’s opinion is reflected by the Obama administartion.
2) I don’t think the only possible alternatives are nihilism or authoritarianism. It should be possible for a society to recognize certain objective values (the value of the human person, the nature and value of motherhood and fatherhood, the value of freedom) without oppressing anybody, and especially without limiting religious freedom.
In fact, all the great minds of our tradition (e.g. Plato) held that if reason is unable to recognize objective truths and values, in the end freedom itself will be lost. This happens because humans can be easily manipulated by the powers that be, unless they exercise their reason to free themselves from the effects of irrational impulse. But if freedom is misunderstood to the effect all impulses are sacred, in the end freedom will be lost (see Plato’s “Republic”).
If we believe that fundamental human rights are God-given, they existed before Christ.
jbruns,
Christ is God. Christ and God both have existed at the same time always. Humans and their Trinity given rights came later.
You make very good points Carlo.
As a practical matter, the bottom line is bc pills are relatively cheap, and women can pay for them themselves, and we already have government programs that distribute bc pills to women who cannot afford to buy them.
To be a libertine is one thing, but the cheap and vocal libertines behind this push for universally free contraceptives are truly out there.
I just want to say that as this “war” or whatever goes on, I find myself being more and more distanced from my Church (if it still is) which is more interested in proclaiming its perogarives than the Gospel,.
The growing tension between “pronciple” and intellectual honesty and cries on behalf odf minstries while the needs lf everyday people are expendable sroke me as hypocritical.
The roling out of an”apologetic” by policy makers and their lawyers, canon and civil, have replaced the proclamation of the Good News.
I agree with Bruce that Christ is Godm but I don;t think the easy characyerizations like”libertines” is at all Christ,like.
E. O. Wilson, in The Social Conquest of Earth, explains how and why the ancestors developed eusociality.
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Conquest-Earth-Edward-Wilson/dp/0871404133/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337783599&sr=1-1
Search Inside for “eusocial”. See, e.g., pages 6 and 7.
“. . . the evolving populations . . . had to feel empathy for others, to measure the emotions of friend and enemy alike, to judge the intentions of all of them, and to plan a strategy for personal social interactions. As a result, the human brain became simultaneously highly intelligent and intensely social. It had to build mental scenarios of personal relationships rapidly, both short-term and long-term. Its memories had to travel far into the past to summon old scenarios and far into the future to imagine the consequences of every relationship. Ruling on the alternative plans of action were the amygdala and other emotion-controlling centers of the brain and autonomic nervous system.”
Thanks to the Old Ones for our “principles”.