muckefuck | Selective intolerance

Skip to Main Content

Entry tags:

politics

Selective intolerance

So for days I've been mulling a rant in response to this open letter chastising those who called for the resignation of Brendan Eich and warning of the dire consequences of this kind of "intolerance". (I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty sick of being called "intolerant" for not particularly caring that an anti-gay millionaire lost his job for badly handling his first PR crisis as CEO.) Now, thanks to Donald Sterling, I don't have to.

I do wonder if I'm guilty of a false equivalence here, but to the degree the cases aren't comparable, I think they actually favour Sterling. After all, his remarks were private and involved only private affairs (i.e. who his girlfriend should associate with). Eich's donation was public and had the political aim of depriving others of their civil rights (unconstitutionally, as it turns out). David Badash spells it all out pretty clearly I think. Perhaps I'm missing something, though, so I'm hoping one of the signatories comes forward to take and defend a stand on Sterling so I can pick through their justification.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Only a minority were calling for his resignation, and some of them later acknowledged that they would've been content with a public apology.

That's pretty much why I signed the petition. I don't agree with Eich's stance. But I don't think he should have to recant it. As long as he's prepared to respect and obey the law as it stands where it affects the corporation, he shouldn't have to agree with it, nor should he have to say he does.

The whole image of the erstwhile heretic publicly apologizing and being forgiven and accepted by the orthodox can be magnanimous, and it's a powerful tool for enforcing norms. But it's the opposite of liberal and it's explicitly, intentionally not tolerant.

(Surely the whole point of the procedure is to establish what won't be tolerated.)

As a matter of basic ground rules, I don't want it to be an issue whether anyone from CEO to the gardener is pro-life or pro-choice, Zionist or anti-Zionist. (Assuming they're not CEO of Planned Parenthood or the Jewish National Fund, anyway.) Any more than it should be an issue whether they're gay or straight, or Jewish, Catholic, Muslim or Mormon. If it impinges on their duties, go after them for that, otherwise, no.

Of course, once that principle is breached, it's self-sustaining. If it's legitimate to give a damn what the CEO voted for, then what the CEO voted for will affect customer numbers and alliances and stock prices. So we can-- have to!-- act against him for entirely pragmatic reasons, for the good of the company. Just as Dalton Trumbo couldn't get work from people who had nothing personal against him, for the good of the studio. Just as the mom of a kid out of wedlock couldn't expect to keep her job-- the customers wouldn't stand for being in the same room with her.

And to that extent, it's true. But it's only true because no one would say "What they do outside work isn't work's business" and make it stick.

To some extent, I think the corporations themselves are to blame for this state of affairs. To quote from the Gillespie piece:

Now that we’re well past a subsistence economy, we live in a world of largely symbolic exchange, where we don’t simply choose something because we’re hungry or naked but because we want to make a statement about what sort of person we are, what sort of taste we possess and what sort of values we share.

It was they, after all, who embraced the idea of selling us a "lifestyle" and an "identity" back when we were content just to by stuff. Mozilla's response to the Eich affair was so full of pious lectures about the "Mozilla community" and its "values" that it was being at at a megachurch. Apparently, without Mozilla, the world as we know it would end. Honestly, the guy Christians call their saviour didn't have that much of a savioiur complex. And then everyone's shocked and dismayed when some of us say to them, "So this is the guy who best embodies those values? Really?"

Then on top of that, there's Hobby Lobby and its ilk pushing the association between the "values" of a company and the personal beliefs of its management still closer. But I imagine you're as opposed to that whole tendency as I am.

Edited 2014-04-29 15:52 (UTC)

That's probably true. (And more so for Mozilla, which is a corporation owned by a non-profit foundation complete with manifesto.) But the fact that corporations have played their part in sowing the wind doesn't make me favor the whirlwind.

And it seems they should at least be judged on the basis of what ground they've actually chosen to stake out. Google, of course, has its nigh-universalizing "Don't be evil" motto, which would cover just about anything. IIRC, some of Apple's claims range nearly as far. But Mozilla's mission seems to be defined specifically around the Internet as an open and public resource, rather than broader social issues.

Re Hobby Lobby: I think they should have the legal right to choose not to pay for contraception, and I disagree with and disapprove of their exercising that right in that way.

Same with wedding photographers who don't want to shoot same-sex weddings: pace the courts that strikes me as a straight First Amendment freedom of expression issue. (If photography isn't a mode of expression, why do you need a pro instead of just renting a nice camera from LensRentals? Should my writer friends have to take PR commissions from ProtectMarriage.com or the local Southern Baptists?)

But as professionals, I think that they shouldn't confuse doing a proper job with endorsing the client. When I'm asked a reference question, I may suspect (or outright know, because they've told me) that it's in service of a frivolous lawsuit or a baseless conspiracy theory. But that's not my business, and I don't let it prevent me from answering questions or suggesting relevant avenues of research. (I may tell them as a matter of fact that I don't think the law they're looking for exists, but if they want to keep searching anyway I'll tell them where that sort if thing might be found if it did.)

Do you think that Hobby Lobby should have the legal right to choose not to pay for vaccinations, antibiotics, etc. if they believe that viruses and bacteria do not exist? Or that a child inflicted with DM I should not be treated with insulin because it was "God's will", and with enough prayer the DM will disappear?

Chuck

To answer, I'll assume something like the current law.¹ I'll also note that I don't think the outcome of this case really matters much in itself. If Hobby Lobby loses, I won't lose any sleep over it.

¹As a general matter of policy, I think a) Hobby Lobby should have the legal right not to offer insurance at all, and b) the insurance model makes sense for rare and expensive events, and shouldn't encompass prepayment for standard, relatively low costs incurred by a large fraction of the affected population for decades. So hospitalization or chemotherapy, but not contraception or dental cleanings, for the same reason that oil changes and routine maintenance aren't covered by car insurance.

But sure, I don't think people should be required to offer services they have strong moral objections to, and I think that the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability") requires that religious objections in particular get a wide berth. ("Strict scrutiny", as the standard goes.)

(It's not the only principle in the world, and it can be overcome if it conflicts with others of equal or greater importance. But the difference between covering and not covering contraception isn't the difference between, say, covering and not covering cancer surgery.)

So: I don't know of any particularly antivax religions, though betting the odds there are some. (I know Christian Science tends to be negative on materia medica generally, which might mean entirely exempting them from the requirement to provide insurance.)

But (rightly or wrongly) we're willing to allow individuals to choose not to be vaccinated or to vaccinate their children. So we've already admitted the possibility that personal objections to vaccinations overcome the public interest. If it's okay (or at least permitted) not to do it, then it seems as if it should be permissible not to pay for it.

(Though given the public health implications of vaccines, there's a decently strong argument that vaccines should in any case be directly publicly subsidized, rather than requiring individuals or their employers to pay for them.)

Whether it's possible to have a sincere religious objection to antibiotics that doesn't cover other medical treatment is something I'd be inclined to leave up to the courts to decide. (The law isn't required to recognize the Church of I Don't Feel Like Complying With This Statute. On the other hand, how do Jains or other practitioners of ahimsa feel about antibiotics?) Certainly, at some point the policy becomes hollowed out enough with exceptions as to not constitute health insurance.

When that point is reached, they either need to be granted a full exemption or not. That would be based on a balancing test between the two laws, one of which requires providing health insurance, the other of which requires respecting people's religious convictions, and the relative burdens on the parties imposed by each.

"I don't think people should be required to offer services they have strong moral objections to, and … that religious objections in particular get a wide berth."

So that "wide berth" would extend to parents of a young child with DM I who refuse to allow treatment on religious grounds and relying on their "strength of prayer" to cure the DM I? And when the parents prayers "aren't strong enough" forces their child to endure a prolonged, painful, untimely death that could have been avoided. After all the child is the parents personal property with which they can do whatever they please.

Chuck

That comes across pretty hostile for a question posed in good faith, Chuck. Please try not to put words in anyone else's mouth. (No one has said anything about children being "parents' personal property".)

Indeed, until children are of the age of majority, they are considered property of their parents. One can get a court order to change the situation, depending on circumstances. Historically, wives were considered the property of their husbands, but of course that has changed.

Chuck

Do you have a legal citation for that? I know a lot of people believe it to be true, but that doesn't make it so.

To point up only one major difference: I'm allowed to euthanise a pet I own as long as I do it humanely. I'm not aware that the state places any burden on me to prove that the euthanisation was "medically necessary" or "in the best interests of the animal" or anything of that sort. I don't have the same broad rights with regard to my children (unless I'm Belgian, that is).

So that "wide berth" would extend to parents of a young child with DM I who refuse to allow treatment on religious grounds and relying on their "strength of prayer" to cure the DM I?

In the 80s, there was a case where that happened (which may be what you're referencing). The legal determination at the time was that the parents weren't guilty of homicide, but they were held to be civilly liable (with a $5.2 million award to the noncustodial parent who'd opposed the decision.)

As I said, freedom of religion isn't the only principle in the world, and neither are parental rights to make decisions regarding their kids. We let, e.g., Amish parents take their kids out of school at 13, even though mainstream culture generally regards that as harmful to their future prospects. We don't let parents sacrifice their children to Moloch. Corporal punishment is legal, but only up to the point it becomes child abuse.

Honestly, if it were my decision, I'd probably put the decision not to treat a diabetic kid with insulin as closer to sacrificing him to Moloch. Whether or not I'd jail them after the fact, I'd be sympathetic to a court order to treat him which, if disobeyed, would cost them custody. (Though in practice, they might just flee the jurisdiction, so I don't know how much good it would do.)

But the line between parental autonomy in medical and religious matters and state intervention has to be somewhere, and wherever it's drawn it's going to result in bad cases and harm in one direction or the other. There's a reason for the adage "hard cases make bad law". Given the many times facially neutral laws have historically been used as cover for religious persecution, I can understand why the law has developed in the direction it has.

Actually there was a recent case in Idaho, where a child with DM I died because of lack of treatment. Their "minister" told the parents to "pray away the diabetes", which of course did not work. The parents were brought up on charges on child endangerment for failure to provide/allow treatment. They were convicted.

Chuck

I'm not finding that one, though I may just be missing it. This news article from last November indicates that Idaho has specific laws shielding parents in faith healing cases. This one from January indicates that there's a move to modify that in the wake of recent child deaths, following a tightening of the law in neighboring Oregon. (Where a couple was sentenced for manslaughter for failing to seek treatment for their son.)

Faith healing is widely practiced by Christian Scientists, Pentecostalists, the Church of the First Born, the Followers of Christ, and smaller sects. Many of these believers reject all medical treatment in favor of prayer, anointing with oils, and sometimes exorcisms. Some even deny the reality of illness. When they reject medical treatment for their children, they may be guilty of negligence and homicide. Until recently, religious shield laws have protected them from prosecution; but the laws are changing, as are public attitudes. Freedom of religion has come into conflict with the duty of society to protect children. The right to believe does not extend to the right to endanger the lives of children.

The faith healing sects truly believe they are doing the right thing when they let their children die; they accept it as God’s will. Some believers even refuse to wear seat belts. Their inconsistent behavior shows that they tend not to have thought things through very carefully. They hypocritically accept care from eye doctors and dentists. Adults often clandestinely seek medical care for both major and minor medical problems while children don’t have that option. In some cases parents saw a doctor for hangnails or mole removal for themselves yet refused to take their child to a doctor for a fatal illness.

Their beliefs come from groupthink and social consensus rather than from reasoned theology or the Bible. Many of them have not read the Bible; when a whistle blower did, he was surprised to learn how much it differed from what he had been taught. They have a supportive, close-knit community and face overwhelming peer pressure. If they resort to medical care, they are shunned by everyone they know and may never see anyone in their family again.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing, and when a child dies, the death is considered unavoidable and is attributed to God’s will.

I take it that neither you nor "muckefuck" have had children. I have two children plus two grandchildren and this "colors" how I react to this subject. Likewise, I don't want someone telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body, but children must be protected from abusers, sadists and psychos.

More on this subject here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/faith-healing-religious-freedom-vs-child-protection/

Related to this is corporal punishment. This is legal as long as it does not produce serious/fatal injury. A recent case involved a father who beat his 6-week-old child with a wooden dowel. He was told by his "minister" that this should be done "until it hurt." The court and jury disagreed. Incidentally, the use of the dowel did not stop the infant from crying, but did produce serious injury.

Typical comment: "I don't think bruises are telling signs of something bad… The pain is used to tell them 'thus is serious and I need you to obey.'"

Chuck

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only