Edd Doer on The Importance of This Year’s Elections for Secularists

Edd's column from the current (April/May) issue of Free Inquiry, “The Importance of This Year’s Elections,”  is featured on the British web site Churchandstate.org.uk.

Climate change, reproductive choice, and saving public education may be the most crucial issues in this election season

This year’s elections may be the most crucial since 1860. Foreign policy, the economy, social justice, tax policy, the appointment of Supreme Court justices, and the stagnation/retrogression of the middle and lower classes are just some of the many issues that our under-informed, distracted electorate will be asked to consider when choosing among the candidates. But in this column let me just highlight three of the most important ones.

Climate change

While the Paris agreements of late fall 2015 are a small step forward, it is fair to say that most American voters have yet to wrap their heads around the climate-change problem in all its depth and complexity. In addition to the global-warming effects of atmospheric carbon-dioxide buildup caused by burning fossil fuels and consequent sea-level rise, which poses threats to the 40 percent of the world’s population living in coastal areas, there are at least these other serious concomitants: environmental degradation; resource depletion; soil erosion and nutrient loss; deforestation; desertification; biodiversity shrinkage; toxic waste accumulation; growing freshwater shortages; decreasing access to rare minerals essential to modern manufacturing; rising consumer demand and consumption; and increasing sociopolitical instability and violence. Much of this was detailed in Michael Klare’s 2001 book, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, and many other books.

Though too rarely mentioned, all of this is fueled by human population growth, tripled since World War II to well over seven billion. Scientists have been warning that this would happen since the 1950s. In 1974, the U.S. government produced the National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) report, signed by President Gerald Ford and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, which spelled out the problem and recommended universal access to contraception and abortion. Mysteriously, however, the NSSM 200 report was “classified”  and buried until shortly before the 1994 United Nations population conference in  Cairo. When the report was finally published in 1996 in The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy by Stephen Mumford, I was one of the very few writers who published reviews of it, in several forums. Meanwhile, reactionary Senator Jesse Helms and Representative Henry Hyde succeeded in getting Congress to pass legislation designed to interfere with broad domestic and foreign access to reproductive health aid. As I pointed out a year ago in the National Catholic Reporter, were it not for the 1.5 billion  abortions performed worldwide since 1974 (far too many of them illegal and dangerous), world population today would exceed a mind-boggling, unsustainable nine billion!

This brings us to the conservative religious and political leaders who have gone all-out to deny the dangers posed by overpopulation and to obstruct efforts to deal with the problem. Pope Francis may be commended for his good words on  climate change and social justice, but if he fails to reverse the Vatican’s absurd ban on contraception, ignored by most Catholics but all too influential with politicians, those good words will fall well short. Opponents of  universal access to contraception and safe, legal abortion must be seen as inimical to our species’ surviving, much less thriving.

Reproductive choice

Who by now is not aware of the massive Republican effort, in Congress and state legislatures, to defund Planned Parenthood on the phony charge of selling fetal tissue? Only about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s budget is devoted to abortions, while the rest is used for a variety of women’s health issues, particularly those of women of more limited means. Then there is in recent years the massive Republican flood of  state laws clamping down on clinics that perform abortions, thus denying an increasing number of women—mostly poor women—access to various forms of health care.

Religion is inserted into the issue by conservative religious leaders and politicians who insist that the Bible is on their side, a claim that is clearly phony. The Bible does not really deal with abortion. Anyone who bothers to look into it would see that the Bible actually supports the science side of the argument. Here is how: Genesis 1:27 and 2:7 state that “God created man in his own image” and humans became persons at their first breath. To cut to the chase, if “God” is not flesh and blood and DNA, then the Bible authors must be referring to some other qualities, such as consciousness and will, which modern science shows are not possible until sometime after the fetal brain is sufficiently wired to permit consciousness, after twenty-eight to thirty-two weeks of gestation. About 90 percent of abortions are performed by thirteen weeks and over 99 percent by twenty weeks. The small percentage that occur after “viability” at twenty-three to twenty-four weeks are due only to serious medical problems, such as threat to the woman’s life or severe fetal abnormality. This point was made in an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in the 1988 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, signed by 165 distinguished scientists including twelve Nobel laureates, one of whom was DNA codiscoverer Francis Crick. (Note: I engineered the brief, which grew out of an Americans for Religious Liberty conference of scientists, lawyers, and theologians on “Abortion Rights and Fetal ‘Personhood.’”) Judaism, we might note, has always generally regarded personhood as beginning at birth.

Of course, readers of this column may well be indifferent to what the Bible says on this matter, but it is useful to know that one of the main arguments against women’s rights of conscience and religious freedom on this issue is essentially groundless. Opposition to abortion rights, if not based on what the Bible actually says, must be based on something else. That something else is the misogyny found throughout the Bible (and the Qur’an) and deeply rooted in most societies today. Official Catholic opposition to women priests and assorted evangelical forms of misogyny, not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim forms of it, are among the many manifestations of that worldwide ailment.

Narrow, Religious & Business Exemptions?

By  Gary Berg-Cross

In its Hobby Lobby case decision the supremely, un-supreme court approved (rammed down our throat?) yet again another religious exemptions….for business.  It is yet another activist judge fallout from a Clinton era, federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act  (RFRA) passed by Congress to “protect individuals' religious freedoms.”  OK you have to now

translate “individual” to “company boss’s” (with firm religious beliefs).  And it’s supposedly just for contraception, that special religious sensitive area of human life.  It’s a religious liberty according to Justice Alito who saw boss liberty as in danger. Bosses with religious convictions, it seems to some, are under siege and feeling less free. They need some protection from this big, insensitive, secular government that is intruding on their exercise of belief. 

One may ask about the protection of employees, but this intrusion and harm seemed not to trouble Alito. His position seems to be something like “side effects are NOT going to happen if I say they won't happen.” There’ no explanation beyond that. No more reasoning about why this doesn’t open a door to something more. Justice Ginzburg could see some likely downside:

 

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"

And she offered some rationale why the ruling seems unreasonable:

"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

 

On the potential slippery slope we have quickly learned that “Other corporations are going to jump in and take advantage of this I assume and say, ‘well wait a minute, our corporation doesn’t like this or our fundamental founders of our corporation doesn’t like that.’  Based on that, we should be able to opt out of provisions of Obamacare also and get away from that for our employees,” Analyst Greg Skordas

As widely noted this ruling was dressed up as one of those narrow decisions, but it seems to me more like another camel’s business-and-religion-friendly nose under the secular tent.  The rulings words say that it applies only to closely held private or companies whose owners have “deeply held” religious objections to certain forms of contraception. How narrow is that? It depends on understanding terms like closely held.  How many of US companies might fall into this category?  Well mom and pops qualify, but so might a company employing 10,000 people if held by a family of 5. One notes that Hobby Lobby itself has 600 stores with about 30,000 employees. They aren’t the biggest either.  Mars Inc., the family-owned candy giant, takes in $33 billion in revenues and has about 72,000 employees. Closely held Cargill Inc. takes in more than $136 billion in revenue and has about 140,000 employees. Indeed, roughly 90% of all companies in the U.S. are closely held, according to a 2000 study by the Copenhagen Business School. And they account for up to 50% of business. So there is a sneaky scope here despite what it is called.  What’s going on?

 

We've seen this type of opening before, although people have a short memory, the current problem has a long history. The spate of court decisions seems like part of incremental trend to slowing, but actively turn laws in a very business and religious faith friendly direction.  Certainly is friendly to those who are anti-choice. As Vox noted “since 2010, states have moved aggressively to restrict access to abortion and taken new steps to defund family planning programs.“ The wave of changes seems unprecedented and some see its roots in an:

unholy alliance of conservative greed, reactionary politicians and oppressive religious fanatics, which has a pinnacle of power in the Supreme Court, ‘

The core of conservative justices we have now seem more like a gaggle of politicians in judicial clothing that have slumped into shallower and shallower thinking in the service of some growing solstice of ideology.

One way of understanding this trend and its Supreme Court connection is to go back to lobbyist

& Nixon appointed justice Lewis F. Powell (see an earlier blog on Powell and Corporate Blueprints). This is a pre-Bork time but some of the politicization & hidden agendas we see in the court today goes back to Powell’s detailed plan, formalized in a secret 8 pg. memo entitled “Attack of American Free Enterprise System.” This was written to activate and engage the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The message then was familiar now, “become more aggressive in molding politics and law in the US.”  This is the aggression we see in increasingly polarized & politicized elements of our society. The consensus view is that the Powell memo, together with efforts by other proto-neocons, like Jewish Conservative Irving Kristol, united Chamber-types, reactionaries and Wall Street plutocrats crystallized an ideological vision that was emerging in early neocon circles. With this type of money and well placed backers the result established a opaque cabal of right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Accuracy in Academe, and Fox News. They in turn provided the ideological seeds, political cover & groundwork for these religio-corporatist movements that this type of Supreme Court grows out of. They can all be traced directly to subversive spirit & full-spectrum methods outlined in the Powell blueprint manifesto against progressive values, secularism, & the American left.

So in June, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that, under RFRA, corporations counting as people - their sincere religious belief that “life begins at conception" also get protection.

In other words “Freedom for Bosses' Religious Beliefs.” We have to stay tuned and alert. Sincerely secularly but also politically-astutely alert.

Conservatism Wins Again

This week, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has announced a ruling in the case of Mohamed v Jeppesen Dataplan in which they have denied cert, meaning that they will not hear the case. This leaves in place the en banc ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that endorsed the government's argument that any legal challenge to any executive branch action must be dismissed immediately once the government invokes the State Secrets Privilege.

For a quick explanation of this case and its implications, go read Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars post of the 19th, entitled, "Kiss the Constitution Goodbye":

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/05/kiss_the_constitution_goodbye.php

I cannot imagine that the SCOTUS could possibly allow the Executive Branch to hide illegal behavior. Such a ruling is so contrary not only to past SCOTUS rulings, but to the very purpose for the Court's existence. In the past, the Court has acted as a brake on the government, a bulwark against government misbehavior and oppression. That is the reality of why it exists as a third, independent Branch of Government, so it can rule against such overreaching activity and have a hope of it being obeyed. That is why it has the power to completely overrule and kill an act of Congress that has been signed into law by the President. That is why it is the only Branch that can, by itself, overrule the other two Branches in a way that would require a Constitutional amendment to be itself overridden! Yet, the Court has completely let us down, in one of the most important cases in recent memory. In this one ruling, without even hearing the specifics of the case, the SCOTUS has virtually destroyed the accountability of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. This is a hole big enough to drive a whole army through, much less a Mack Truck.

The only way I can imagine this to happen is through the current conservative majority on the court, which just happens to include 5 catholic members.

Now I don't for a minute blame this on the RCC, or on these five Justices' religious beliefs. It IS on account of their conservatism, however, and I think this is a clear indication of how we can expect the Conservatives to act if and when they become a majority of this government, given how the Republicans have acted on their own in the House since obtaining a majority there.

Will this really mean the end of the Constitution's protections? By itself, I don't think so. A vast majority of people brought before the bar of justice on this country are brought before State and local courts, where it is unlikely that any State Secrets will be at issue. I would also doubt that many of the Federal actions would also fail to rise to that level, either.

But this IS a bad ruling, contrary to the very principles enshrined in the Constitution, that the Government cannot use illegal actions against citizens where those citizens' freedom or welfare is at stake. It allows the Government to continue its bad behavior, without the brake of Court oversight.

Hopefully, in time, a more liberal court will reverse this travesty.

Robert Ahrens