There are two quotations which I would like to share with you on this Holy Saturday 2014. Both are from C. S. Lewis, the Christian author who died on the same day in November of 1963 that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The first:
. . . [W]orst of all is this: we cannot help seeing that only the degree of virtue which we now regard as impracticable can possibly save our race even on this planet.
The second:
[To have faith in Christ] means, of course, trying to do all that He says. There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice. Thus if you have really handed yourself over to Him it must follow that you are trying to obey him. But trying in a new way, a less worried way. Not doing these things in order to be saved, but because He has begun to save you already. Not hoping to get to Heaven as a reward for your actions, but inevitably wanting to act in a certain way because a first faint gleam of Heaven in already inside you.
The result of putting these thoughts together is the realization that we will not escape the trap in which we have placed ourselves, the trap of using our free will to try to please ourselves above all things, until we see that love is all there really is in the universe and we must freely allow that love to flow through us by the exercise of our own free will because we see that action as our own highest good.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the Hobby Lobby case yesterday. Hobby Lobby is a closely held (family owned) for-profit corporation. If you’re unaware or only vaguely aware of it, this case concerns whether a for-profit business corporation or its owners can claim the protection of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Specifically, the question to be decided is whether RFRA permits a corporation to avoid compliance with the so-called HHS Mandate requiring businesses to supply cost-free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifascients to their insured employees under the Obamacare law if compliance would offend the religious sensibilities of the owners of the corporation.
The for-profit corporation is our ubiquitous legally created “servant” but I believe that the unique nature of this type of servant is little understood. Most Americans see these servants rather as oligarchs and overlords. According to the 1919 Michigan Supreme Court case, Ford Motor Company v. Dodge, the nature of the corporation and its governance can be described as follows:
A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits, or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
There is committed to the discretion of directors, a discretion to be exercised in good faith, the infinite details of business, including the wages which shall be paid to employees, the number of hours they shall work, the conditions under which labor shall be carried on, and the price for which products shall be offered to the public.
It is pretty simple according to the law, a corporation is a “good man of business” which is the term used by Ebeneezer Scrooge to describe his late partner Jacob Marley in Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol. Corporations are our servants because we have created them to serve our needs. Corporations were conceived of as a method by which men could accomplish economically desirable ends for society which would otherwise be impossible or exceedingly difficult to achieve. Corporations are empowered to accomplish these economically desirable ends by means of a fictional personhood which permits organization of large amounts of capital and numerous employees. In contrast to humans as owners, who have inherent limitations chief among them being their mortality and other human frailties, corporations renew themselves with fresh blood whenever necessary and they can do so eternally. Corporate investors are provided with limited liability and, for this benefit, they surrender the control of the details of the business to a board of directors who themselves can be replaced whenever necessary or convenient. The limited liability aspect of the corporate ownership facilitates accumulation of large amounts of capital since the investors are not generally liable for anything other than their original investments. The corporation’s employees and customers can work for it and contract with it as if it were a person in its own right. In concept the corporation is just that simple. We shall see, however, in upcoming installments that there are unintended and un-envisioned complications of utilizing the corporate form including the possibility that a family like the one which owns Hobby Lobby, can be forced to use its money is ways which would clearly violate the “free exercise of religion” clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act if the family owned the business other than through the use of the corporate form.
It looks to me like Rep. Akin, senatorial candidate from Missouri, is confused about the difference between the idea of morality and the idea of legality. In Akin-World should all immoral conduct be subject to some form of legal sanction? If so, whose morality should govern? Haven’t we already lived over forty years under the governmentally imposed morality of the rights of the mother control all abortion nearly all the time? Shouldn’t we know the difference? Isn’t the very idea that a woman is pregnant through involuntary sexual intercourse something that we all shudder about? Isn’t that shudder an acknowledgement that there is something deeply different about unwanted pregnancy and “forced pregnancy?” I certainly think and, more importantly, feel so and I’m a committed pro-lifer. But this is the very reason that the question about pregnancy through rape is such a loaded one. It makes even pro-lifers extremely uncomfortable and confused. Therefore, when Rep. Akin was asked the question about the collision between pregnancy by rape and a law against all abortion he sought refuge in an unproven and probably baseless medical hypothesis, that a woman’s body would protect against pregnancy if the cause were rape by violence or, as Akin put it so inartfully, ‘legitimate rape.’
There is no significant evidence that in cases of “legitimate rape,” read that ‘rape with violence’, that women’s bodies will tend to repel and protect against pregnancy from the sperm of the attacker. In fact, this whole idea is really pretty stupid if you are putting it forward in an effort to prove that rape-pregnancies don’t exist. They do. So, even if there was some evidence, even one case of pregnancy based upon such a rape is deserving of being addressed in the context of the question of whether there are any circumstances in which abortion should be legally permissible. And even if there were a mountain of evidence which indicated that rape with violence pregnancies were impossible, what of other rapes? Rape through trickery, rape of an involuntarily intoxicated person, rape by an authority figure and other situations in which the will of the woman is overborne, what should be the case for abortion then? Is the idea of Rep. Akin that it just easier to argue for and enforce a prohibition of all abortions rather than address these questions on their merits or lack thereof? Is there another reason?
Of course, in the Catholic church all abortion is immoral. That is because we Catholics view the act of abortion is itself intrinsically evil and therefore is impermissible in any situation. This is a good and clear and morally defensible argument. It is a hard teaching and one which creates foreseeable albeit rare situations where women are called to bear children conceived without their consent. A horrific circumstance but one which a woman of extreme faith could embrace and grow immeasurably through the love she shows to the innocent child of rape. But, what about the world in which we live? How many women of such faith exist even among Catholic women? Do we as a society have the right to impose this trial of faith upon a woman because we consider the act of abortion to be inherently evil?
In the natural law world inhabited by philosophers there are apparently arguments both supporting and opposing abortions in rape situations. The first, as indicated above, is the natural law ethical theory of Double Effect. In that analysis, before you get to any other consideration, you determine whether the action to be undertaken is either “good in itself” or indifferent. If the action is itself inherently evil, then it is never permissible. When the death of an innocent child is involved, in this view, actions taken to end it’s life are inherently evil and therefore impermissible. The countering natural law theory has to do with acts which are contrary to nature. It is obvious that it is contrary to nature for a mother to kill her child. There is vast evidence that women will go to great lengths for their children both to preserve their lives and advance their interests at all or nearly all costs. An act contrary to this natural imperative is clearly an act contrary to nature. When, however, might this not be so? Clearly this “natural law” view comes into conflict with the natural law of self preservation in some circumstances. When, then, does the natural law of self defense come into play in the pregnancy arena? Is it not fundamentally defensible to suggest that this is a very different situation than one in which the woman voluntarily places herself in that position? For instance, when a child has been conceived against the will of its mother and poses a threat to her life, as any pregnancy does, should the woman be forced to carry the child to term? What risk is a woman legally required to undertake when she is involuntarily pregnant? The common law (a form of natural law which has been used in this country’s courts for hundreds of years) has already taken a position on a similar circumstance. The common law does not require a person to rescue another unless they have created that circumstance or they are in a special relationship with the person at risk. This is essentially the situation created by a rape-pregnancy. The woman, who had no hand in creating her pregnancy, should not be legally required to carry the pregnancy to term because she neither created the circumstance nor does she have a special relationship with the child which was created without her consent. This is not a moral position though, this is a legal position. It may not be your or my cup of tea, but it is defensible and reasonable.
Catholic and other anti-abortion advocates can reasonably argue that it is immoral to abort a child because abortion is inherently evil and unjustified on any basis. It seems to me that these are fundamentally different questions, though, whether it should be illegal for a woman to abort a rape-child and whether it is immoral. It seems to me that in that circumstance a woman should have the legal option to abort the child even if I would also argue that she should morally avoid utilizing that legal option. It seems to me that anti-abortion advocates like myself should acknowledge the legal, if not moral, difference between the voluntary pregnancy and the involuntary one. This is especially true when our opponents inexplicably see no difference between the two situations in terms of the rights of the mother to abort the child. Our opponents argue simplemindedly that the child has no right to life when his/her life cannot be supported outside the womb of its mother regardless of whether or not the mother voluntarily embraced the possibility of new life when engaging in sexual relations. To utilize the foregoing common law analysis the mother who voluntarily agrees to engage in sexual intercourse both has a hand in creating her condition and has a special relationship, thereby, with the child. Legally there is a basis for placing a legal obligation upon the mother, a woman who is pregnant through voluntary actions on her part, to carry the child to term. There is simply a valid legal difference between the rights and legal obligations of women carrying children who were conceived through voluntary intercourse and those conceived through rape, even if some would argue that there is no moral distinction because the child is in both instances an “innocent.” Those who are pro-choice see no moral or legal difference and I think that those who are pro-life should view things with more depth in terms of what should be legal in this country even while maintaining their moral consciences for personal decision making. If we in the pro-life camp continue to refuse to see the difference between law and morality, there will be more Akin moments to come.
I wish that Trayvon Martin was not dead. His young life ended far too soon. Who knows what he could have been or done in his life? I feel deep distress for his parents. Losing a child is probably the hardest thing a person can undergo. I will pray for Trayvon and his parents. We all should.
For most of the last month the public focus has not been on Trayvon or his parents but upon Trayvon’s status as a proposed martyr. The President of the United States weighed in on Trayvon’s case in terms both measured and cool emphasizing that he had to be careful as chief magistrate of the country and further calling for a comprehensive investigation. That is he set the right tone right up until the point that he ratified a link between Trayvon’s race and his death by describing him as a young man who would have looked a lot like an Obama son, in other words a young black man. Wow, 90 seconds of good sense followed by a few seconds of spewing gasoline in a room full of matchbooks.
Then there is Rep. Frederica Wilson who takes to the floor of the House of Representatives every day with her poster which bears a four year old photo of Trayvon while she calls for justice against his “murderer” who is still “at large.” Prejudgment? Incitement? Political hay?
Next, we have the New Black Panther Party whose spokesman calls for the collection of reward cash for the capture of George Zimmerman, the admitted shooter. Is the implication that he be captured and “brought to justice” dead or alive? Is this a reasonable course of action in a situation in which charges are not even pending against Zimmerman? I am aware of no evidence that he is in hiding from authorities. Is this a crime, calling for the kidnapping or murder of another, or is this just free speech exercised in a very confrontational way?
And then there is the Reverend Louis Farrakahn. He tweeted as follows:
“Where there is no justice; there will be no peace. Soon and very soon, the law of retaliation may very well be applied.”
Is Rev. Farrakahn race-baiting? Since that term suggests a verbal attack upon members of a racial group, it appears not. Rather it appears to me that this tweet is a form of permission given by Farrakahn to the black citizens of our country to feel personally aggrieved by Trayvon’s death, based solely upon the the idea that Trayvon was just walking while black. That is Trayvon’s death is allegedly due to being racially profiled. A blogger whose blog is dedicated to defending Farrakahn had to say about whether he was race-baiting:
His words are clear . . . , these types of acts of violence against blacks, against youths; can result in the increased spirit of immediate retribution in the family of victims, because waiting on a justice will prove to be a double dose pain and heartache. Where not only have you lost a family member but even the justice system that is supposed to aid the victim, actually victimize the victims even more through loop holes, prejudices, and racism as well.
But is this blogger’s version any better? Where is the call for calm and cool reason? Why no call to await the results of the investigation? Who will lose out if there is a full and dispassionate investigation leading to a reasoned and just result?
We ought to view this volatile situation through the lens of the writings of famous Christian writer C.S. Lewis. Lewis has a good deal to say about what’s going on in the aftermath of Trayvon Martin’s death.
Even a good emotion, pity, if not controlled by charity and justice leads through anger to cruelty. Most atrocities are stimulated by accounts of the enemy’s atrocities and pity for the oppressed classes, when separated from the moral law as a whole, leads by a very natural process to the unremitting brutalities of a reign of terror.
Is Lewis right that anger leads to cruelty? Are people inciting new atrocities to “make up for” the Trayvon atrocity? Where is provision made for the moral law as a whole? Don’t we all know that anger, as stimulated by atrocities, leads to the loss of moral reflection and control by the aggrieved and their enraged defenders? Why would anyone want to stir up anger before all the facts are in? Again, the words of C.S. Lewis:
Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, `Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything – God and our friends and ourselves included – as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.
What happens when we give in to the hatred and anger sought to be stoked by those seeking retribution for the presumed “racial profiling” death of Trayvon at the hands of George Zimmerman? Don’t we, as Lewis suggests, lose sight of our “enemies” as people with all of the rights of people. Anger will trigger in our minds a deadly revenge process for previous atrocities. And, as C.S. Lewis observed, these feelings will linger long after the Zimmerman case is resolved one way or the other. They will linger even if the evidence shows that Zimmerman is a man innocent of racially motivated murder even if guilty of atrocious judgment. That is why, I’m afraid, we are being subjected to a constant barrage of anger inciting images and rhetoric. As someone previously said, no crisis can be allowed to pass without being used. Here there is no denying that the crisis is being manufactured for the purpose of inflaming passions. That is not Christian and I doubt it is properly Muslim either.
Post Script:
A little addition on the question of why. Communist Revolutionary Che Guevara once said: “To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.” [Emphasis added]. Is this attempt to make Trayvon a martyr a step towards fomenting some sort of revolution or is it just about political business as usual using it as fuel to keep people in an inflamed state so that they and their votes can be more easily manipulated?
Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote this book, “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness.” Generally speaking the book explains how enlightening “choice architecture” can inspire decisions which will make people happier. Some such choices are decisions about broccoli consumption, increasing retirement savings and reducing strip mining inter alia. Says Sunstein to an interviewer:
A nudge is a small change in the social context that makes behavior very different without forcing anyone to do anything. The concept behind libertarian paternalism is that it is possible to maintain freedom of choice–that’s libertarianism–while also moving people in the directions that make their own lives a bit better–that’s paternalism.
What does this say about the “nudgeability” of the new regulation making contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization free of charge to the recipients? On the other hand, Santorum says:
Sunstein believes that it is right to nudge folks into being happier and he expressly wields the federal government’s nudge powers in order to achieve that result. Santorum believes that generally taking more care with respect to the procreative power of the sex act will make people happier and will be better for our society to boot. Santorum emphasizes that he would not eliminate the availability of contraceptives for anyone who wishes to obtain them but would only deny the federal government the power to make people of faith subsidize contraceptives His aim, I suppose, is to nudge people into being less promiscuous by driving up the cost. (Of course, contraceptives are pretty inexpensive anyway so the expense of birth control would seem to be rather minimal in that decision-making calculus). According to Sunstein though small “architectural” changes can have a big impact. Maybe Santorum is just using Sunstein as his model? In any event, what is the difference, if any, between these guys? We’ll get to that in a minute.
Another enlightening exchange between his interviewer and Sunstein is this:
Q. Paternalism implies that there’s some notion of what “good” is. How does anyone determine what ‘s “good”?How do we determine what is good for the environment?
A. For most nudges, we’re thinking of people’s good by reference to their own judgments and evaluations. We’re not thinking that the government should make up its own decision about what’s good for people. The environment can fit within that framework to a substantial extent, but it has a wrinkle, which is that often when we buy certain goods or use certain energy or drive certain cars. . . we inflict harm on others, so our own judgment about our own welfare aren’t complete. We want nudges that do help people who are being nudged but also help people who are harmed by those who are not taking adequate account of the risks they are imposing on other people.
Emphasis added.
Isn’t there likewise, to use Sunstein’s language, a ‘wrinkle’ in the idea of contraception which leads to more uncommitted sex which is itself having negative effects on the society as a whole? Shouldn’t this risk be taken into account as well? Or is the difference between Santorum and Sunstein related to the idea that catastrophic and anthropomorphic global warming is now such a firmly established scientific principle that there can be no legitimate debate about what behaviors cause this result? But isn’t there also scientific evidence that a major cause of the breakdown of the family and society can be laid at the doorstep of contraception, promiscuity and over 40 million abortions? Why can’t the freedom to be promiscuous be somehow nudged against in the same way that it is apparently okay to nudge people against driving certain cars or buying too many appliances? It is certainly not about disagreement about the nudging itself, both men are open to that. In fact Sunstein espouses it much more forthrightly than Santorum. For his part Santorum takes pains to deny that he would refuse the right to purchase contraceptives to anyone.
The new HHS regulations must have been approved by Czar Sunstein, the President’s regulatory Czar. What nudging was he engaging in with these HHS requirements requiring employers/insurers to provide free birth control, abortifacients and sterilizations to their employees? Was he attempting to nudge more people to act more freely with respect to sharing their sexuality? To be fair he, Sunstein, may believe or at least hope that making contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations free will have no effect on increasing promiscuity? If he’s wrong in his belief and hope, won’t “nudged” promiscuity impact the institution of the family, the raising of children in an intact home, and the general breakdown of society? And what would he penalize by reason of the counter-nudge? Sunstein, of course, is okay with burdening the opposite side of the “free contraceptives” argument who refuse to financially contribute to this culture of sexual freedom. In fact, he would financially destroy those who would take a principled stand against paying for things which their religion tells them are damaging to the dignity of individual men and women and to the society itself. And his mandate for employers is not a “libertarian nudge” but an devastating attack against those who are religiously motivated to refuse to comply.
What we have here is an example of nudging in favor of the secular morality which advocates for “free love” (pun intended) coupled with enforcing a destructive mandate which can only harm those holding a principled religious morality. And, as indicated, Santorum wouldn’t even ban contraceptives or sterilizations yet he is the one who stands accused of wishing to deny contraceptives to women and men who wish to use them. On the other hand Czar Sunstein is not even accused by the media of trying to ‘nudge’ an increase in uncommitted sex and general promiscuity. Sunstein and Obama seem to be making a political decision to support an increase in uncommitted sexuality while reducing fecundity because it is politically popular. Secular morality, because it is political, enhances a tendency to do what feels good even if it is actually bad for people and their society in the long run. Why is one of these men called mainstream and filled with wisdom while the other is labelled as being out of the mainstream and laughable? Has anyone else read “The Brave New World?”
Is there such a thing as a ‘secular morality?” Where does it come from? Is it something we vote on? Is it something we universally or nearly universally agree upon? Is this secular moral code something so important that someone could choose to die for it? Is secular morality something we can be compelled to act as if we agree with or do we just need to obey it? Is the highest and best secular moral value based in politics or the conscience? If it is politically based doesn’t secular morality amount simply to that which seems easiest or most appealing to the human animal? If these morals are politically arrived at can they be changed by a mere change in the political climate or by what party is in charge?
Assuming that secular morality is something we collectively agree upon politically, what should the government do to instill or enforce secular morality? This is an important question. Once secular morality is adopted, is it the proper role of government to see that these ‘morals’ are force-fed to our children thereby becoming self-reinforcing? In fact, a set of ‘secular morals’ are already being force fed to our children in government schools like the “moral” ideas about global climate change, virulent anti-capitalism, population control and Johnny having two dads. Similarly the government has already done for us what is apparently morally correct; things like levying a trade ban against South Africa to stop the clearly repugnant apartheid (I’m not saying that everything they do is bad), redistributing wealth from one set of U.S. citizens to others ‘who need it more’, the provision of abortion on demand and mandating that there be “health care” for all.
So, is population limitation a high tree or even the highest tree in the secular morality forest? This question is at the heart of the new administration policy requiring nearly all employers, including religiously related ones, to provide health insurance for their employees and in so doing provide “no cost” contraceptives, abortifacient drugs and sterilizations to their employees. In fairness to the government, in its most recent proposed regulation the government will only require ‘the insurers for religiously affiliated groups’ to provide these benefits for free and the insurers must do so without charging the religiously related institutional employers anything for it. This “compromise” supposedly takes advantage of the concept, expressed by the president’s new chief of staff, that the government will require(?) insurers to accept the profits generated by not having to pay for “accidental” pregnancies and that these profits/savings will more than offset the cost of the free “birth control.” If this concept, as explained by the chief of staff on last week’s Sunday public policy shows, is actuarially correct why would insurance companies, well known for finding profits anywhere they can, have failed to do this of their own accord already? Will this logic apply equally to all sorts of questionable “preventive care” for fertile women or are these other savings actually the money left from not having to pay for the medical care for 18 years after the birth of an unwanted child? What has this all to do with secular virtue and secular morality anyway? According to secular morality are children bad or good? Or is secular morality a situational morality based upon the perceived circumstances of the parents and/or the apparent desirability of the infant/fetus? Or is it choice itself which is the highest moral good in the secular moral universe? If so, why do we limit this choice to a time prior to birth? What about the choice to engage in sexual relations in the first place, isn’t this a choice? What is so ‘morally’ different about a newborn and a fetus which are both 32 weeks of age (from conception that is)? Morals are just such slippery things.
Next question: does the administration’s rule about free birth control to be provided by insurers impact the freedom of religion of Roman Catholics and other religiously motivated individuals? Whether they run religiously affiliated hospitals, social service agencies or educational institutions aren’t they moral actors? Under Catholic religious principles these people are required to refrain from participating in or providing abortions or contraceptives except in highly limited situations. Requiring participation in this sort of activity is an imposition upon the consciences of religiously motivated individuals who are responsible for these and any other health insurance-purchasing entities. And what of Roman Catholic insurers, the “compromise” unambiguously destroys these businesses altogether.
Next question: Is there any provision in the secular morality which provides for people’s religious rights? In response to press questions concerning this violation of the consciences of Catholics, Jay Carney clearly enunciated Obama administration policy, to wit: after “careful” consideration the administration decided that the secular morality of the “need” to increase the availability of preventative services to women outweighed the secular morality which protects religious consciences and that this is the right balance(?) to strike. How do you weigh the secular morality of allowing religious liberty versus the secular morality of actively providing free birth control to all who have any inclination to use it? Only one of these secular morals is embodied in the constitution. But the president clearly has decided that the one moral good is not as worthy as the other moral good. Doesn’t this kind of mean that the government is deciding between the ‘moral good,’ as defined through the political process, that of providing free birth control pills and abortifacients to women and the Catholic/Christian moral good of respecting the dignity of the life of every fetus/zygote.
Well that’s it I guess. “Private” conscience is one thing and will be “indulged” if there is no substantial impact on the achievement of important secular moral aims. In this context the secular moral objective is plainly to limit the procreation of American women (or it could be to increase the amount of sex which American men have available with a greatly reduced chance of unwanted parentage). Limitation of procreation is apparently a very high goal of this administration and its allies in Congress. On Wednesday a group of Democratic party senators made this public announcement.
Have we reached the point in this country where a secular code of morality has displaced religious morality? Is unfettered liberty rather than principled liberty the highest political and moral end?
Let me ask a couple more loaded question before I go. Is it not in your experience, as it is in mine, that it is men, not women, who are the more powerfully motivated in their desire for intercourse? If this is so, whose freedom are we really talking about, men’s or women’s? At this very moment in this country, women are able to exercise either their right “not to engage in intercourse” or alternatively to obtain free contraception from Planned Parenthood or elsewhere virtually any time. What is more free than that? And what of Sen. Boxer’s list of other conditions which contraceptives treat? Well, why should these drugs, even if they are contraceptives used to treat these conditions, be provided free of charge when the rest of us must pay at least the deductible for drugs which treat our illnesses and conditions? Methinks she doth protest too much!!!
In sum, we know that in this administration’s opinion the secular morality of women’s health (sexual freedom) trumps the first amendment’s requirement that the federal government not burden the people’s free exercise of their religion. I would propose that what we really know is that constitutional rights just aren’t what they used to be. Secular morality must be provided for somewhere in the penumbra of the bill of rights and, stupid me, I just failed to see it there. Has this secular moral code now actually reached the status of a state religion? If not, it seems to me that we are getting closer and closer to that point. If it has, what do you think is the difference between a religious moral code and the secular moral code in terms of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to wit:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .
Short and Sweet Blog 