There’s are thoughts on several topics there that may be unfamiliar to Mere-O readers, as the Iraq War comes up, the meaning of “pro-life” gets kicked around, and…..well, read for yourself:

What’s more, I don’t think wealth inequality [...]]]> Rachel Held Evans’ readers ask all kinds of hard questions.  As in really hard questions.

There’s are thoughts on several topics there that may be unfamiliar to Mere-O readers, as the Iraq War comes up, the meaning of “pro-life” gets kicked around, and…..well, read for yourself:

What’s more, I don’t think wealth inequality is unjust per se.  Bill Gates deserves a whole lot more money than I do, given the sorts of things we’ve built respectively and the role they’ve played in the world.  The disparity in our resources isn’t unjust.  Instead, injustice occurs if people are disenfranchised and not allowed to participate in the political process.  We should have real concerns (and I do) about that, and we should be concerned about how wealthy people use political power to create “hedges” around themselves and their businesses so that they keep wealth.  But those critiques should be made carefully (I forget who first pointed it out, but we should remember that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party had the same objection to “crony capitalism”).

Thanks to Rachel and her readers for the really invigorating discussion.  I thoroughly enjoy Q&A, probably more than any other format I speak or write in.  So the opportunity really was a joy.

And if you are coming from Rachel’s and didn’t get your question answered, drop it in the comments below and I’ll get to it as soon as possible .

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which [...]]]> My friend Tim King over at Sojourners pointed me to this bit from Mother Jones last night:

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don’t offer prescription coverage or don’t offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC’s interpretation of the law, you can’t offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

As the Mother Jones article notes, the Bush administration didn’t reverse the ruling–but The Weekly Standard suggests they softened enforcement of it, either.

But the legal record on contraception funding is, well, mixed.  From an incredibly helpful brief by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in 2009:

Although the federal district courts have split over the issue of whether the PDA requires employers to provide contraception, the only federal court of appeals to reach  the issue held that the PDA did not include a contraceptive mandate. In 2007, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that contraception was not sufficiently “related to” pregnancy to fit under the umbrella of the PDA….Specifically, the court grounded its opinion on the fact that contraception itself is “gender-neutral” and the plain language of the PDA statute did not refer to contraception.

An employee health insurance plan, therefore, did not violate the PDA by failing to include contraception coverage. Since the court ruled the employer’s decision not to cover contraceptives did not involve a “sex classification,” it could not be categorized as a sex-based violation of Title VII.

Given the relatively recent vintage of the EEOC’s interpretation and the mixed court rulings so far, it remains an open question whether federal law, like some state laws, will impose a contraceptive mandate on objecting Catholic colleges and institutions.

In fact, you really can’t do better for an overview of the legal questions  than that brief.  It’s well worth 15 minutes of your time.

That “open question” has now been slammed shut.

But to my point:  it’s would be easy to say that the reaction by conservatives to the purported compromise is strictly partisan, that it has everything to do with mobilizing votes against Obama rather than substantively defending religious liberties.  The reality, however, is that the conflict has been brewing for a long time.  And interestingly, it hasn’t been just religious employers, either.  Nearly every lawsuit mentioned against EEOC requirements around funding contraception have been against secular businesses, including the one that suggested businesses didn’t have to pay for them.

But if conservatives were late to realize that the game was afoot, that does not invalidate the validity of the concern. Read that brief closely and note that they raise the possibility of religious institutions “out-sourcing” their insurance funding and the “quandary of conscience” that would result.   The suggestion that the response is partisan grossly underestimates the depth of conviction that institutions like Belmont College have to their Catholic principles.  And it ignores the political dynamics of the moment:  as a messaging strategy, it’s easy for all this to sound like conservatives are simply against contraception, a position that is politically untenable.  The only partisan politics that would drive that sort of approach would be those on shooting yourself in the foot.

This issue isn’t going away.  But that has nothing to do with an election cycle, and everything to do with the growing trajectory of laws that have hemmed religious institutions in on matters of sexual ethics.

Christian activism tends to take two forms, political and economic. The basic method in both cases is the same, though: we work for justice and goodness by using our votes and/or dollars to influence those [...]]]> Alan Noble over at Christ and Pop Culture takes on conservatives for how they went about the Komen controversy:

Christian activism tends to take two forms, political and economic. The basic method in both cases is the same, though: we work for justice and goodness by using our votes and/or dollars to influence those in power. This is, after all, the way our country, with its free market democracy, works.

While I don’t want to argue that we should totally abandon political action or dismiss money’s influence, I do think that the Komen situation reveals the dangerous nature of attempts to force positive change through coercion. This kind of change is fickle and passing. If we can force Komen to change their policies with our boycott, then what is to stop another, bigger boycott from forcing them to change back? As we have seen with Komen, the answer is “nothing.” Whether it is through votes or dollars, coercing someone to accept our position is nihilistic: it suggests that real change — change of heart and mind — is impossible, or unlikely, and so the safest bet is to make it profitable to adopt our beliefs.

The alternative they mention of sending checks to institutions we’d rather have is one I endorse unhesitatingly.  Find the good, praise it, and then pass the plate on its behalf.  They note that it’s a strategy that fits with its cousin “boycotting,” but it ought to be the louder, more dominant approach.  All well and good, that.

But here’s where I want to quibble:  this “changing hearts and minds” business has simply got to go.  Let us make a pact, Mere-O readers, and promise to do jumping jacks every time we use it during the 2012 political season.  You know, for fitness’s sake.  And for our own.

Changing “hearts and minds”  is well and good, but it’s a mistake to suggest that other forms of change are any less real. Hearts and minds exist in a web of institutions, and if you can reshape the playing field you can change the game.  It may take a generation or two to unwind and work its way through the hearts and minds of those who have come along later, but what you lose in speed you gain in staying power.

And contra Alan, I am skeptical that anyone really believes pressuring Komen is a genuine strategy for changing hearts and minds.  The goal, I think, is rather different:  keep money away from Planned Parenthood so as to erode their ability to provide abortions.  De-nickle and dime the organization to death, as it were, or until they limit themselves to providing genuine health services to women who need it.  And the little human bodies whose lives are at stake are enough reason, I think, to simply send a note and ask folks to forget funding them this time around.

Let me be clear that the long path toward unwinding Planned Parenthood will require patient, thoughtful, rigorous dialectics to persuade those who disagree that the problem is really there.  But in the meantime, ringing up a neighbor to remind them that their money would be better spent on a crisis pregnancy centers than on Planned Parenthood is not an act of political nihilism at all.   It is an act of hope, and even of charity, and one small brick in the countercultural wall that the fellows over at Christ and Pop Culture and we at Mere-O all want.

On Friday, President Obama addressed the nation and announced a compromise on the question of mandatory contraception.  In short, women who work at religious institutions will still be able to get free contraception, but their employers [...]]]> Let’s pick up where we left off last week, shall we?

On Friday, President Obama addressed the nation and announced a compromise on the question of mandatory contraception.  In short, women who work at religious institutions will still be able to get free contraception, but their employers won’t have to pay for it.  That will be pawned off to the insurance company instead.

The details are still hazy, which is precisely where we’re often reminded the devil likes to hide.   As Sarah Kliff points out, the simple fact that contraception might be “revenue neutral” for an insurance company doesn’t mean it will be free.

The conservative concern at this point is twofold:  on the one hand, costs will get transferred back to religious employers, making this “accommodation” a cheap parlour trick that changes nothing.  On the other hand, the insurance policy that such organizations purchase will still cover contraception, and the pure fact that someone else is paying for them doesn’t mitigate the objection that the organization still has to purchase coverage that it objects to.

This latter view was put forward by a whole host of conservative scholars, including a few folks who I view as intellectual heroes and others I consider friends:

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.

I’ll admit I find the idea that insurance companies will hand out contraception and other abortaficients because they happen to be revenue neutral rather far-fetched.

I’m trying to find a silver lining in all this, but my cynical side thinks that the haziness of the modification is simply by design.  Do enough magic tricks and hope that everyone simmers down long enough for the next crises to take over and cause us all to forget this one.  And that may just happen (though the strong reaction by Robby George et al. suggests that it will not).

But is there something that I’m missing from the above?  Is there some reason to think that this is actually a genuinely substantive change in policy?

This as part of the follow [...]]]> I’m loitering over at Rachel Held Evans’ site these days as questions roll in about my opinions on matters faith and politics.  She was kind enough to let me interact with her readers on how I manage the delicate art of being a Christian and a political conservative.

This as part of the follow up–or clean-up, depending on how you think it went down–to the piece that dropped at Relevant earlier this week.

At any rate, don’t read “answering for” there in that title too rigorously.   I’m not in the box, giving a defense.   My goal is simply to provide take on things, to call  them as the intellectual eye sees ‘em.

My hope and goal in all of this is simply that which I had when we set out on Mere-O:  to test out the waters and see whether a conservative, Chestertonian and Lewis style of engagement could be repackaged and to have a lot of good conversations with folks smarter than I along the way.

So go on over, like one of the questions, and then come on back next week for my attempt at an answer.  

The benefits of social networking are many but require judicious and responsible use to be enjoyed. When done well, social networking can enhance the fellowship of [...]]]> Back in December, I had the opportunity to participate in a roundtable for Christianity Today about the prospects and limits of social networking for churches.   Here’s my opening:

The benefits of social networking are many but require judicious and responsible use to be enjoyed. When done well, social networking can enhance the fellowship of the church by providing congregants a window into each other’s lives. It can mobilize congregants to serve their neighbors and enhance the church’s mission by embedding the community of church relationships in the broader community.

But social media can merely offer a short-term, technological solution to deeper, more fundamental problems. Social networking can give the appearance of intimacy and community without enabling the substance of embodied friendship.

The more we wed ourselves to social networking as a strategy for building community, the more we risk forgetting that the problems in our communities do not hinge upon lack of access to shared information about each other’s lives. They result from our own reluctance to share space and meals together, and to enter into environments and social situations that require our embodied presence. The comforting arm around a shoulder that comes when we “weep with those who weep” will never have an equal virtual substitute.

But first, two news stories to keep an eye [...]]]> The discussion last week about the HHS decision to require religious organizations (excluding churches) to pay for contraception through their insurance plan was, in short, excellent.   My hope in what follows it to hastily outline a few thoughts in response to it.

But first, two news stories to keep an eye on.  First, even Chris Matthews has come out against the HHS on religious liberty grounds.  Which means it’s not just conservatives who are concerned here.

Second, the White House is floating language about a compromise because of the backlash.  That’s good news.

For the backstory, read Michael Brendan Dougherty, who has brought the A-game to this issue.  This question seems exactly right:

Isn’t this a case of conflicting rights? 

Yes, basically. Proponents of the regulation say that women of all faiths have a right to health-care and the way we provide health-care in this country is through employer-based health insurance. If contraception and sterilization and all these other things are health-care, then employers have to provide it. To them this is a simple uncontroversial idea, hindered only by the dogmas of a medieval Church.

The discussion last week centered on the question of whether it is an infringement of religious liberty to require religious institutions to pay for things they are morally opposed to.  One of my favorite commenters, “Christian Lawyer,” suggested that it was not on grounds that such institutions won’t actually be paying for contraception:

When paying salary, the funds flow from the university to the employee, who then chooses how to spend the money. Thus, no one argues that a Catholic university is being required to “fund” or “pay for” contraception when one of its employees uses their salary from the University to make such a purchase. The university’s religious liberty does not extend to dictating how funds are used once they are provided to a non-ministerial employee as salary because the funds go out of the control of the employer and into the control of the employee.

Health insurance is another form of compensation provided to an employee. Employer-sponsored or -provided insurance policies are a form of non-monetary compensation in which the employer contracts with an insurance company and pays a portion of the premiums to the insurer, which holds the money to be paid out only as directed by the employee. We know that this non-monetary form of compensation is substantively and legally no different from monetary compensation (salary) because, without the specific exemption in the IRS Code, the employer-paid cost of the health insurance policy would be taxed as ordinary income to the employee even though the employee receives it in the form of non-monetary insurance benefits.

Even if the government requires the employer to make arrangements for an insurance plan that covers contraception, there is no funding that ever flows from the employer to the actual provider of the contraceptives or abortion. The insurance company is not “providing” contraception. It merely holds the funds (or benefits) controlled by the employee. Thus, funds only go from the insurer to the actual provider of contraception if the employee so directs.

This is about as good an argument as you’re going to see on this, quite frankly.  Solid work, of the sort that makes me love Mere-O that much more.

But–and you certainly knew this was coming, didn’t you?–I don’t think it’s successful.   It’s absolutely true that Catholic employees can take their salary and do whatever they want with it (within the bounds of the law) without their employers saying, well, anything.

But the question of insurance funding is different:  while the decision to activate that particular part of the insurance plan might lie with the employee, the funds come directly from the employer.  The insurance company is simply a mediator, and as such has no moral significance (it seems to me).  It is the employer who presents the plan to the employee and outlines the benefits, the employer who has (or had, anyway) final say over what benefits get covered, and the employer whose money goes into the account to pay for it.  The actual insurance company serves at the will of the employer, which is why employers are frequently shopping companies trying to get better rates and packages for their employees.

Consider the parallel case of 401ks.  Employers are the “plan trustees,” but they are almost universally run and sourced by third parties.  But as the trustees, the employer funds them, approves the fund choices, etc. and so is materially responsible for their operation.   If, for instance, employers do not provide sufficient education for employees around investment options, the employer can be subject to lawsuit.

Insurance benefits function very similarly.  As such, it is absolutely the case that the regulation is forcing Catholic employers to pay for contraceptives–even if such contraceptives have to be requested by employees.

Let’s go at it this way, in case the argument hasn’t taken hold yet:  when an employees insurance covers something, who pays for it?  The insurance company or the employer?   The fact that insurance counts as non-monetary compensation within the tax code doesn’t much matter, as when such compensation is delivered in the form of contraceptives (or insurance checks paying for contraceptives) it’s still the employer writing the check.  To put it differently, the non-monetary compensation is compensation from the employer, not the insurance company who is managing the plan.

The money might end up in contraception one way or the other, if employees go spend their monetary compensation on it in the open market.  But when it comes to how it’s being paid for and who is footing the bill, the  difference in agency makes all the difference in the world.

You should read the whole thing.  But to whet your appetite, here’s a teaser that didn’t make the cut because I had gone on too long already:

In its pursuit [...]]]> The good folks over at Relevant Magazine invited me to chip in my thoughts on a series they’ve been doing on Christians and politics.

You should read the whole thing.  But to whet your appetite, here’s a teaser that didn’t make the cut because I had gone on too long already:

In its pursuit of justice, then, the government’s primary responsibility is to judge against wrongs and protect against threats to society’s welfare–rather than to provide goods directly. Given the diversity and complexity of society, we ought to retain a robust and healthy modesty about our government’s (or our own!) ability to determine “the common good,” and an even stronger skepticism about the government’s ability to promote it. Best to let it simply emerge from each sphere working at its best in its own area, and allow a nimble but strong government to judge the wrongs it uncovers accordingly.

But go on now.  Read the whole thing.  And then let me know what you make of it all in the comments.