news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Who’s real technocrat? Obama or the church?

Thursday, February 16, 2012
(Updated 3:05 am)

David Brooks’ criticism of President Obama’s program to combat poverty is interesting for his defense of religious institutions, especially Catholic ones (Feb. 8 ). He defines members of the Obama administration as “technocrats” who “are in the business of promulgating rules. They seek abstract principles that they can apply in all cases. ... Technocracies do not defer to local knowledge. They dislike individual discretion. They like consistency, codification and uniformity.”

From my experience in the Roman Catholic Church, which was 57 years, I believe his definition really applies to the church that I have known. And I believe that it is because religious institutions have certain biases that preclude their fair administration that government has to act in this regard. Brooks admits he wishes the president would “go back to his community-organizer roots” for his direction. I submit that President Obama is doing just that.

C. Yvonne Thomas
Jamestown

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

mamaboilermaker

February 16, 2012 - 7:31 am EST

In the U.S. people can choose to submit to a particular church or not. If paople don't want to abide by Catholic principles, they should stay away from Catholic churches and Catholic employers--problem solved! The church is not the problem. A government that believes it is above the Constitution is the problem.

The unconstitutional demands upon Catholics are the natural extension of the unconstitutional mandate for health insurance, which was the natural progression from all the unconstitutional programs that ignorant Americans have allowed over a century because they did not value the great freedoms and limited government passed down to them by the founders.

Sawdust

February 16, 2012 - 7:44 am EST

Obama's policy also does not take into account what insurance is. It is to cover unexpected disasters--car insurance covers theft, collision, etc. It doesn't cover new sound systems or custom paint jobs. Home insurance covers fire, flood, and storm damage, not new curtains and wide-screen televisions. When gummint forces insurance companies to cover non-emergency items, the cost is bound to go up.

destinys mother in law

February 16, 2012 - 8:59 am EST

In case you haven't checked lately, there are as many kinds of insurance as there are risk prone situations. People buy all kinds of insurance. The "gummint" insures the elderly, the disabled, and children with no means. I know that galls you, but most Americans appreciate the absence of starving beggars on the streets seen in other third world Darwinian capitalist states.

Sawdust

February 16, 2012 - 9:18 am EST

Yes, and you should be able to choose which one you want, and employers should be able to offer which one they want. But that is not what Lord Barack the Magnificent wants. He wants to dictate everything. And he wants to cover everything, regardless of what it costs. The fat cats and the millionaires and billionaires should be happy to foot the bill.

retiree

February 16, 2012 - 9:46 am EST

And pray tell me, who pays for the insurance? Hhhhmmm???

When BHO said the costs of contraception would paid by the insurance companies, how do they get that money to pay for it? The first law of economics is nothing is ever free and someone will pay for it. In this case, the government (through social security, medicaid, etc) is charging us (taxpayers) to pay taxes which provide those services.

If a company wanted a health insurance plan that covered everything under the sun, the insurance company would provide them a rate to pay for the coverage which included stop-loss, etc. The companies would, in turn, determine what rate their employees would pay to cover "everything" and the insurance company would NOT pay for the cost. The insurance company is not paying it . . .the company and their employees are paying for it.

destinys mother in law

February 16, 2012 - 12:30 pm EST

Which would you rather pay for, a $10 pack of birth control pills or a $2500 pregnancy? A $10 pack of birth control pills or a $3000 operation for endometriosis? A $10 pack of birth control pills or a $200 monthly visit for dysmenorrhea?

mamaboilermaker

February 16, 2012 - 12:46 pm EST

People who can't pay $10 for a pack of pills should spend their time finding ways to enhance their incomes, not whine about how other people should pay for them to have sex. And quit holding babies over our heads like Damocle's sword. People who are irresponsible will not use birth control responsibly either--so irresponsible people will always produce unfortunate babies. Likewise, people who are responsible enough to use bc as directed are also responsible enough to pay for their own pills or get a job with insurance coverage from a non-catholic employer.

thinkingman

February 16, 2012 - 1:47 pm EST

"In 2001, approximately one-half of pregnancies in the United States were unintended (Finer 2006, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health), and the United States has set a national goal of decreasing unintended pregnancies to 30% by 2010. Efforts to decrease unintended pregnancy include finding better forms of contraception, and increasing contraceptive use and adherence"
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/

There sure are a lot of "irresponsible" people out there.

More likely, there are some people who can afford to be less careful (and don't mind getting pregnant), some who are uneducated, and some who are irresponsible. The point of offering contraceptive coverage is to empower women to take control of this choice, which has numerous benefits for the individual, society, and even medical and insurance providers. The cost of coverage is negligible in comparison.

The problem as I see it is out-of-touch Catholic officials ignorant of the fact that 98% of all women use contraception at some point in their lives, and ideologically stubborn conservatives who are more concerned with "individual responsibility" than the greater good. Give people the resources to be responsible and yes we might pay a little up front, but we all share in the long-term benefits.

gsonc214

February 16, 2012 - 2:21 pm EST

"Give people the resources to be responsible and yes we might pay a little up front, but we all share in the long-term benefits."

I would have to disagree with you on this one. People have had the resources to be responsible for quite some time now. I know when I was in school there were known sources of free contraceptives (condoms at the time) that just required you to pick them up and use them. That is where the whole personal responsibility piece comes in. You can give people all the resources in the world and it doesnt help if they are responsible in using them. You can lead a horse to water....

thinkingman

February 16, 2012 - 2:29 pm EST

The question is, what works? Judge by results. Access to condoms gives all the power to the men, and all too frequently to teenage boys. Can you realistically expect teenage boys to use a condom every time, no matter how many they've got in their pocket? We probably can't even expect that of fully grown men. Then you throw in the fact that social conservatives preach abstinence-only education, work tirelessly to cut funding to the very programs that give out those condoms, and society in general has an absurd stigma attached to it that makes many people embarassed to even go get the free condoms.

Oral contraceptives give the power to the women. It's reliable, cost effective, easy to use, and safe. It makes sense. We still need comprehensive, realistic health education...we still need to teach men to take responsibility for themselves, but providing coverage for oral contraceptives is such a cheap and easy way to empower women, improve their health, prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions...it really makes no sense to be opposed to this.

gsonc214

February 16, 2012 - 2:47 pm EST

Honestly I'm not completely against the provision, I just think there should be exceptions for institutions such as the Catholic church where it is against the views of their religion. People are not forced to work for the church and could choose not to work there if they didnt agree with their beliefs. Before we talk about how outdated the religion is, just because the liberal Catholics in the US are changing does not mean that changes are coming from the Vatican. If they dont believe according to their religion, there are plenty of others to choose from. Unfortunately many Americans today like the "have it your way" religion where they pick which parts they like and leave the others out. Pretty sure thats not how any of them work.

I still don't agree with your argument...either all these women or teenage girls in situations where men have all the power are being raped or they have more power than you are giving them credit for. Back to personal responsibility. If both of them are willing participants it is both of their responsibility. Its just as easy for her to back out of the situation as it is for him to put on protection. Instead people dont like to be responsible for their actions, they'd rather have those few minutes of satisfaction because "they cant control themselves". Each step in the process is a conscious decision you make, either you allow it to happen or you dont, it's not magic.

I know, the next argument is about the peer pressure or how the partner will react if you dont go through with it. Who cares? If you feel strongly about something it shouldnt matter what others say about it. It's called integrity.

Snapper0274

February 16, 2012 - 4:07 pm EST

Oral contraceptives do nothing to prevent STDs.

Yvonne

February 16, 2012 - 4:45 pm EST

The purpose of this legislation is to help prevent UNWANTED pregnancies, thus reducing abortions. I would think anti-choice folks would be all over this. thinkingman is totally on top of this one with his statement regarding giving power to women by giving them control over their reproductive rights.

destinys mother in law

February 16, 2012 - 7:35 am EST

"They seek abstract principles that they can apply in all cases." Sounds like the US Constitution to me.

Sawdust

February 16, 2012 - 8:27 am EST

Not with Eric "my people" Holder in charge of the Justice Department. Eric believes that "his" people deserve preferential treatment.

destinys mother in law

February 16, 2012 - 9:00 am EST

What a mind reader you are! I have never seen a quote suggesting that Eric Holder believes this nonsense.

Sawdust

February 16, 2012 - 9:21 am EST

That's because you haven't been paying attention. Holder dropped the prosecution of the Black Panthers standing with clubs at the polls. He said that voter intimidation against whites by blacks wasn't possible. Google "my people" for a glance of his racist attitude.

retiree

February 16, 2012 - 9:48 am EST

You need to get out more . . .his comments about "my people" are well known.

goodtoknow

February 16, 2012 - 10:53 am EST

Eric Holder only upholds the laws he wants to uphold. He pics and chooses. In the Fast and Furious case he claims he knew nothing about it. He is the chief law enforcer in the country. If he knew nothing about it he is either ignorant or incompetent.

destinys mother in law

February 16, 2012 - 12:31 pm EST

Your opinion is not the facts

Sawdust

February 16, 2012 - 7:36 am EST

The letter does not take into account the very obvious fact that membership in the Catholic Church is a strictly voluntary decision. Why anyone would voluntarily remain a member of an organization with which she disagrees is beyond rationalization. Is Yvonne not able to think for herself and make such decisions on her own? Must be an Obamaroid.

destinys mother in law

February 16, 2012 - 8:56 am EST

"Why anyone would voluntarily remain a member of an organization with which she disagrees" Hmmm, you continue to smear the government, so are you still an American?

retiree

February 16, 2012 - 9:49 am EST

DMIL . . . look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights . . . .pay close attention to the Freedom of Speech part.

Yvonne

February 16, 2012 - 10:43 am EST

Many Catholics stay in the Catholic Church, although they no longer believe in some of it's doctrines, because they were born into the Catholic religion and were raised in it. I heard a discussion regarding this issue on PRI day before yesterday. Seems over half the women who identify with the Catholic Church (life long Catholics) use some kind of birth control. These women are THINKING women who do not let some antiquated (all the way back to "Go forth and populate....) male dominated decree keep them pregnant all their lives. It is totally foolish and irresponsible to keep having children you cannot afford because some men cannot accept women can make good decisions regarding their own bodies. This is not about religion but rather is all about control.

goodtoknow

February 16, 2012 - 10:59 am EST

Some Catholics that no longer believe in some of it's doctrines may not believe because of the media and all of the liberal laws and behavior that we let society and some of our schools get away with. It all begins at home and just producing a human being and letting others raise and teach are not parenting. The Left knows and that's what they have done too destroy what we know as a democratic republic.

destinys mother in law

February 16, 2012 - 1:13 pm EST

It's time to go back to the Middle Ages: Latin only, 5 masses daily, burning heretics, etc. Anything less is liberalism! Where can I get my copy of the Vulgate?

Yvonne

February 16, 2012 - 4:53 pm EST

Then again, gtk, some may not believe because they actually think for themselves and are not sheep. Some may no longer believe because they have realized how irrational it is for a group of pious men in a far away land to be dictating their lives here in the US. These men are not God and even God does not micro-manage our lives. He gave us freedom of choice back in the Garden of Eden....remember the story?

mamaboilermaker

February 16, 2012 - 12:24 pm EST

The way nominal Catholics believe has no bearing on the matter of church and state. If a Baptist says they do not believe in "believer's baptism" by immersion, they are rejecting one if the defining characteristics of a Baptist. They are still free to call themselves a Baptist or a Lutheran or a Vulcan--but saying does not make it so.

Why do liberal women hold on to a cultural label if they don't agree with their church? Why bother to go through all the effort of going to church, giving tithes, taking classes, etc. if you don't believe? There are plenty of places to worship or socialize--no need to hang around people you consider unenlightened or backward or medieval. Are liberal Catholics just hoping to hang on to a bit of "fire insurance" just in case their church turns out to be right?

thinkingman

February 16, 2012 - 2:39 pm EST

Do you really think only liberal women use birth control? Or only liberal Catholics, for that matter?

"Between 2006–2008, 99% of women who had ever had sexual intercourse had used at least one method of birth control."
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/Contraception....

Are all those women just bad Catholics? Are they all liberal?

itsjustron

February 16, 2012 - 1:30 pm EST

This health care act needs to have exceptions,a nd this is the perfect example. To ask the catholic church to provide birth control, is akin to asking the naacp to provide lunch services to the KKK..It is fundemenatly against the churches beliefs, and should not be forced. There HAS to be exceptions, everything is not black and white. Thats what bugs me about this health care plan..it's seeming to me like its total control.

If you do not believe what the church states, then dont be a part of them, its that simple. Dont work for them..

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search