Stupid Complaint #4: All or Nothing?

Stupid Complaint #4: “I suppose you think the State shouldn’t intervene when Christian Science parents refuse to obtain life-saving medical treatment for their children, right?  So if we allow Holy Family Bookstores to not provide contraceptive coverage based on their religious beliefs, we’ll have to let those kids to die too.”  

Basic Reply: There is a huge difference between the survival of a child and the ability of an adult to act upon his/her sexual desires.  The state has a compelling interest in the first case, and no compelling interest in the second.

Further Explanation: It is often said that religious people are only comfortable dealing with black and white situations.  Their minds are too dogmatic to see nuances, make fine distinctions, or understand complex situations.  Well, a secularist who makes the above complaint displays that very sort of unsophistication.

The logic is that if we allow permit a religious exception to a policy in one instance, we must therefore makes religious exceptions in every instance.  It's all or nothing.  No distinctions can possibly be made.

This is nonsense, of course.  In the past the Supreme Court has ruled that the State can act against someone’s religious objections, but only when it has a "compelling interest" and uses a means which is the least burdensome on the objecting individual.

One example of a “compelling interest” is when a child is going to die due to the refusal of ordinary care on the part of the parents.  The state can intervene here because it has a compelling interest in upholding the child's right to life.

At this point, the person leveling the “all or nothing” complaint will see a new avenue for his argument.  He will try to say the State DOES have a compelling interest to ensure everyone has free access to contraception through their employer.   But in order to make that case successfully, he will have to answer questions like:

• How is ensuring every person's ability to act upon his/her sexual desires while avoiding pregnancy a grave obligation of the State? 

• How is purchasing contraception, which is cheap and ubiquitous, suddenly so burdensome that the State simply must act to ensure everyone has a free and never-ending supply? 

• Why is it "compelling" that contraception has to come through the employer specifically, and not through some other means? 

Usually what it boils down to are attempts to conflate the concept of "this is compelling government interest" with "I think it would be nice."

[BACK]