Janet Yellen's characterization of income inequality in this country as a "very serious problem" is well worth noting. Even moreso is one of the reasons she cites in support of this worrisome concern: "the decline of unions." Ms. Yellen made these statements earlier this week in her Senate confirmation hearing as President Obana's nominee to become the next Chair of the Federal Reserve. I laud Ms. Yellen's bravery in her use of the bully pulpit of the Senatorial hearings and in expending the necessary personal and professional capitol such statements require in advance of even a committee vote on her nomination. Further statements referencing the "cross purposes" of Federal Reserve actions and Congressional actions in response to our present economic crisis can easily be interpreted as a clear criticism of Congressional actions.
The recent decline in union membership and strength is not so much the result of inherent weaknesses within the union movement, but the result of a direct assault by legislative bodies on the state level and the movement within governmental and private industry to use subcontracted personnel rather than direct hires. Lots of folks bemoan income inequality, but few, especially those with access to the top ranks of power, clearly identify self-incriminating causal factors and therefore the corrective measures that make both good economic sense and comply with a commonly accepted sense of social justice.
I trust that the ship of state (read: and civil society) has the ability to self correct. The tragedy is the pain, suffering, and loss of life that results from the errors in judgment and the narrowly focused application of political conviction committed by those in authority. May history hold them accountable so that much the same mistakes are not repeated and that the common good is characterized by genuine universality.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Sunday, November 10, 2013
A recent vote in the US Senate and actions by the US Catholic Bishops prompt me to pursue further a line of thought expressed in my posting of September 5th.
The US Senate recently passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which addresses discrimination against LGBT persons in the workplace. President Obama has indicated that he would sign the legislation, if and when it arrives on his desk. Word from the Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives is that this legislation will not be scheduled for a vote, so it is unlikely to proceed any further.
The US Council of Catholic Bishops has published two documents in recent weeks as the Senate was considering this legislation. These included: (1)a letter addressed to US senators, and (2)a backgrounder. Both are available on the USCCB website. In my estimation, the backgrounder is the more telling document. An attempt is made to distinguish between "inclination" (This is a curious choice of words over the more commonly used "orientation.") and conduct. There is reference to unjust and justifiable discrimination (The document uses the phrase: "discrimination that is legitimate."). The underlying assumption appears to be that Error has no Rights as evidenced by the statement: "...sexual conduct outside of [heterosexual] marriage...has no claim to any special protection by the state." I would postulate that as far as the authors of the backgrounder are concerned, "special" is a superfluous word. Their intent is to void any and all protections within the context of civil society. The statement also makes it clear that the term "sexual conduct" is all inclusive without reference to the gender, orientation, age, relationship, or other circumstance (with the exception of heterosexual marriage) of the participants in such conduct.
My September post suggested that a distinction without a difference was being proposed in Cardinal Dolan's statement about judging behaviors and not persons. It is my observation that the distinction being made in the recent documents between inclination or orientation and conduct is similarly built upon a foundation of sand that does not hold up in the day-to-day lives of individuals and in the common areas of social and civil interaction. The intellectualization of a distinction between unjust discrimination and legitimate discrimination is simply unworkable in this context and provides a dangerous guide for civil law. The position of the Catholic bishops is only workable if we accept the premise and the practicality of lifelong celibacy for each and every individual, who describes him or herself as LGBT. Such a position is simply inhumane and unnatural, i.e. in conflict with or in violation of human nature. In support of my critique, I offer the observation that "only 2% of Catholic priests achieve absolute celibacy" (G. Walker, 2004, as cited in Sexual and Intimacy Health of Roman Catholic Priests, P. McDevitt, 2012). It is crucial to remind ourselves that this is within the context of a group of men choosing a career which includes an explicit and very public commitment to live a celibate life. Is it not inhumane and unnatural to make this same demand of every person who discovers his/her sexual orientation to be something other than strictly defined heterosexuality? Contemporary science provides ample support for my position as well--the hard science of biology and the soft sciences of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, so maybe I should apologize for resorting to a high school debate tactic. But I won't.
The question may be restated as: Who gets to decide what is in error? In a diverse, secular society, the boundaries between the personal, the civil, and the sectarian/religious are in constant flux and subject to ongoing struggles and negotiations between the various parties and within the various parties themselves. The interface between civil law and personal/sectarian moral codes is one such boundary. A cursory examination of courtship practices in mainstream American society over the past two centuries or the variation in such practices across today's world provides ample evidence of substantive change and ongoing modification of what is proper, customary, acceptable, legal, and right. As a citizen in contemporary civil society, I may not have to celebrate diversity, but I must be clearly respectful and supportive of such diversity and be willing to accept and work with the personal intellectual and emotional discomfort that so often accompanies the naturally occurring differences in the human community. My personal discomfort may well be on the level of the personal or group moral tenets to which I subscribe.
The US Senate recently passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which addresses discrimination against LGBT persons in the workplace. President Obama has indicated that he would sign the legislation, if and when it arrives on his desk. Word from the Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives is that this legislation will not be scheduled for a vote, so it is unlikely to proceed any further.
The US Council of Catholic Bishops has published two documents in recent weeks as the Senate was considering this legislation. These included: (1)a letter addressed to US senators, and (2)a backgrounder. Both are available on the USCCB website. In my estimation, the backgrounder is the more telling document. An attempt is made to distinguish between "inclination" (This is a curious choice of words over the more commonly used "orientation.") and conduct. There is reference to unjust and justifiable discrimination (The document uses the phrase: "discrimination that is legitimate."). The underlying assumption appears to be that Error has no Rights as evidenced by the statement: "...sexual conduct outside of [heterosexual] marriage...has no claim to any special protection by the state." I would postulate that as far as the authors of the backgrounder are concerned, "special" is a superfluous word. Their intent is to void any and all protections within the context of civil society. The statement also makes it clear that the term "sexual conduct" is all inclusive without reference to the gender, orientation, age, relationship, or other circumstance (with the exception of heterosexual marriage) of the participants in such conduct.
My September post suggested that a distinction without a difference was being proposed in Cardinal Dolan's statement about judging behaviors and not persons. It is my observation that the distinction being made in the recent documents between inclination or orientation and conduct is similarly built upon a foundation of sand that does not hold up in the day-to-day lives of individuals and in the common areas of social and civil interaction. The intellectualization of a distinction between unjust discrimination and legitimate discrimination is simply unworkable in this context and provides a dangerous guide for civil law. The position of the Catholic bishops is only workable if we accept the premise and the practicality of lifelong celibacy for each and every individual, who describes him or herself as LGBT. Such a position is simply inhumane and unnatural, i.e. in conflict with or in violation of human nature. In support of my critique, I offer the observation that "only 2% of Catholic priests achieve absolute celibacy" (G. Walker, 2004, as cited in Sexual and Intimacy Health of Roman Catholic Priests, P. McDevitt, 2012). It is crucial to remind ourselves that this is within the context of a group of men choosing a career which includes an explicit and very public commitment to live a celibate life. Is it not inhumane and unnatural to make this same demand of every person who discovers his/her sexual orientation to be something other than strictly defined heterosexuality? Contemporary science provides ample support for my position as well--the hard science of biology and the soft sciences of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, so maybe I should apologize for resorting to a high school debate tactic. But I won't.
The question may be restated as: Who gets to decide what is in error? In a diverse, secular society, the boundaries between the personal, the civil, and the sectarian/religious are in constant flux and subject to ongoing struggles and negotiations between the various parties and within the various parties themselves. The interface between civil law and personal/sectarian moral codes is one such boundary. A cursory examination of courtship practices in mainstream American society over the past two centuries or the variation in such practices across today's world provides ample evidence of substantive change and ongoing modification of what is proper, customary, acceptable, legal, and right. As a citizen in contemporary civil society, I may not have to celebrate diversity, but I must be clearly respectful and supportive of such diversity and be willing to accept and work with the personal intellectual and emotional discomfort that so often accompanies the naturally occurring differences in the human community. My personal discomfort may well be on the level of the personal or group moral tenets to which I subscribe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)