I have always been dissatisfied with my gifts.
Sigmund Freud
The Reyes Inter-Faith Divorce Case: Some Comments
I have Jewish friends whom will probably disagree strongly with my point of view here; the reason I'm discussing this case has more to do with the ludicrous way a Chicago county judge is handling a faith-based dispute between a divorcing inter-faith couple and the religious upbringing of their 3-year-old daughter.
I myself am the oldest of 7, raised by conservative Catholic parents. (By "conservative", I don't mean traditionalist, but my mother is a strictly by-the-book Catholic: her only sibling is a retired priest, and her late dad was an active parishioner and a member of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul,) Although my mom still wants me to find a nice Catholic woman to marry, she never said a word (that I'm aware of) over the fact that only two of my in-laws were Catholic (although all my nephews and nieces were raised Catholic); the other non-Catholic in-laws were raised in other Christian denominations. (My two sisters-in-law converted to Catholicism several years into their marriages.) I believe that some of my relevant nephews and nieces have, on occasion, attended non-Catholic services.
Joseph Reyes, a Catholic, converted to Judaism around the time he married his wife, Rebecca. They agreed to raise their now 3-year-old daughter in the Jewish faith. The couple decided to divorce, and Joseph has reverted to his original faith. The couple has agreed that their daughter will be free to choose the faith of her choice when she is of age. On at least one occasion, Joseph has brought his daughter with him to church while in custody of the daughter and had her baptized, sending his wife pictures of the event. This infuriated his spouse, whom insists on her right to veto her daughter's attendance of any Catholic service while Reyes has custody of his daughter, because any such attendance would "confuse" the child. Unbelievably, the judge has ruled that Reyes cannot take his daughter to church with him on Easter Sunday.
Catholics, unlike a number of other Christians, believe that baptism should occur early in the life of a child; this has to do with a belief that if the baptized child dies, his or her soul is prepared to be received into heaven. Unlike other sacraments, a baptism can be performed by a lay person, e.g., Joseph could have done it while giving his daughter a bath. There are missing pieces to the reported story. I find it puzzling that a priest would have performed the ceremony without the knowledge and consent of the mother; the Church normally wants assurances that the child will be raised Catholic.
[I will say this: parents often take pictures at significant occasions of their children's life. But there is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Reyes had blindsided his wife with a fait accompli, and he had to know, given their agreement to raise the child Jewish, this would be extraordinarily provocative. It's not right for a child to be put in the middle of a religious dispute between parents. I understand why Mr. Reyes wanted his child baptized, but I don't like how he handled the situation.]
Mr. Reyes is disputing that the couple agreed on the religious upbringing of their child, and I do not believe him; I think the fact he converted to Judaism during the relationship attests to that commitment. I believe that the child should be brought up in the Jewish faith, but I don't see anything wrong with the child learning about and being respectful of her father's faith. Let me get this straight: a child can go to the zoo or a playground with her dad, but a judge is forbidding her from going to church with her dad on the most significant day on the Christian calendar? As far as I'm concerned, it's never too early for a child to learn to be tolerant of people's differences. It's clear that both Joseph and Rebecca Reyes have failed to learn that lesson, and I have no doubt that the child is going to pick up on this mutual antagonism. This matter should never have gotten to the point of a judge's attention--but it's even more difficult to understand how once put in that position, a judge rules a child cannot be exposed to her parent's faith.
An Unpopular Conservative Opinion:
Health Care "Reform" Imprudent but Not Unconstitutional
Let me state at the offset that I am empathetic with the libertarian argument that the government should not mandate the purchase of a particular good or service and that the federal government should not override traditional state-based regulation of health insurance. I am also empathetic to arguments on equal protection issues (adjusted for regional/local cost differences). However, I have doubts that the 13 state attorney generals challenging the reform on constitutional grounds will be successful (although it's possible that the Supreme Court could directly address certain aspects of reform, specifically, individual mandates and traditional state regulation).
From the standpoint of a non-lawyer like me, it's intuitively obvious: where do you draw the line in terms of restricting the scope creep of the federal government if any and everything can be abstractly if not directly tied to the commerce or general welfare clause and the federal government trumps state and local governments by the supremacy clause: whatever became of the ninth and tenth amendments, the concept of the Bill of Rights?
In my view, the government could legitimately argue its right to tax to recover costs ensured by mandated access to emergency or catastrophic care. And certainly if the government maintains a policy of guaranteed issue, the government needs to have some means of covering the risks of individuals seeking to socialize preexisting condition costs. Money is fungible; it may be the courts will not distinguish between a tax in the form of a user fee or penalty or an indirect tax in the form of a mandate.
In my judgment, the issue is more one of implementation versus principle. There are some inherent practical limits to human liberties; for instance, I have the right of free speech, but I do not have a right to made damaging, false statements about others. (That is not the same as, say, my political opinions regarding the President's competence. If, however, I claimed without well-vetted evidence that Obama had sold out American security for financial gain, that would be a different story.) I should have reasonably wide discretion to do what I want to do on my own property, but I have to maintain a properly maintained property which does not create a fire hazard for surrounding neighbors or various health hazards, disturbing level of noise (particularly overneight), etc. I should have reasonable freedom of movement, but I don't have a right to spread a communicable disease in public places. Of course, the devil is in the details, with progressives pushing the limits on various intrusive rules and regulation.
Clearly, the federal, state and/or local government are in the health care sector already (over 46% of sector spending and climbing). There are Medicare and Medicaid programs which operate in all the states. Similar constitutional claims have been made over these programs; however, there are no mandates to participate in these programs
.
One can always hope that the justices will not genuflect at the altar of bad precedents and add to the casuistry of convoluted constitutional law at odds with the founders' intent, which defies the very ideal of the rule of law and seems to be crying for what Thomas Kuhn would call a paradigm shift. There are some hopeful glimpses in a few Supreme Court decisions which note limits to the commerce clause. One would hope that the judges would recognize the fact that health care has been traditionally regulated at the state level, and this legislation usurps that authority: if the Court does not recognize that tradition, what becomes of the very concept of federalism. There is no balance of power when HHS can unilaterally dictate certain benefit mandates to various states.
Obviously we know how this story ends: look at anemic economic growth and sticky high unemployment from statist Europe; look at how Greece in crisis is having to slash its budget, including popular programs, pensions, etc. We need to take steps many in Europe are already starting to do--privatize unnecessary government functionality or delegate to states and local government, restrict program eligibility on a need basis, streamline government operations, etc.
If the Supreme Court refuses to intervene in this power grab by a partisan federal government, then I will gladly support constitutional amendments to prohibit individual mandates or respect the historical authority of states.
.
One can always hope that the justices will not genuflect at the altar of bad precedents and add to the casuistry of convoluted constitutional law at odds with the founders' intent, which defies the very ideal of the rule of law and seems to be crying for what Thomas Kuhn would call a paradigm shift. There are some hopeful glimpses in a few Supreme Court decisions which note limits to the commerce clause. One would hope that the judges would recognize the fact that health care has been traditionally regulated at the state level, and this legislation usurps that authority: if the Court does not recognize that tradition, what becomes of the very concept of federalism. There is no balance of power when HHS can unilaterally dictate certain benefit mandates to various states.
Obviously we know how this story ends: look at anemic economic growth and sticky high unemployment from statist Europe; look at how Greece in crisis is having to slash its budget, including popular programs, pensions, etc. We need to take steps many in Europe are already starting to do--privatize unnecessary government functionality or delegate to states and local government, restrict program eligibility on a need basis, streamline government operations, etc.
If the Supreme Court refuses to intervene in this power grab by a partisan federal government, then I will gladly support constitutional amendments to prohibit individual mandates or respect the historical authority of states.
Political Cartoon
IBD cartoonist Michael Ramirez notes that it took phony crises of the uninsured, Bernie Madoff-style accounting and snake oil promotion tactics to pass the corrupt Democratic Party Health Care Bill into law: Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were willing to sacrifice whatever the cost for this latest unwarranted statist expansion: the only endangered species environmentalists aren't worried about: conservative and centrist Democrats.
Musical Interlude: Tear Songs
The Rolling Stones, "Out of Tears"
Barbra Streisand/Donna Summer, "No More Tears"
Roy Orbison, "Crying"
Boy George, "The Crying Games"
