Regulation and Religion

Harry T. Cook

By
Harry T. Cook
10/17/14

 

 

A good many people who say this country needs less regulation profess adherence to religions that are based on regulation -- "thou shalt" do this and "thou shalt not" do that. Torah is a compilation of 613 mitzvoth (commandments) that regulate everything from ritual offering to sexual behavior to planting, harvesting and who can punish whom for what.

 

Christians are content to skim off the top 10 and often end up honoring them more "in the breach than the observance," as Shakespeare's Hamlet was made to say.* Several Christian communions have remedies for that. They're called sacramental confessions and absolutions, the latter requiring some degree of atonement.

 

Religion is all about regulation. In fact, the Latin religare is part of the etymology of "religion" and goes to the idea of self-regulation or restraint. Most religions I know are heavy on regulating and restraining others but a tad lax on themselves, especially their hierarchies.

 

The "thou shalts and shalt nots" of Torah are seen by deeply thoughtful and devout Jews as signs along the right road to peace and good will. A mitzvah for such folk is reflected light from the otherwise unseen shekinah -- the numinous and vibrant presence of the deity.

 

One of the visiting professors at my graduate school was a rabbi. He told us that the mitzvoth were proof positive not only of God's existence but, as well, of God's goodness. He insisted that their observance, far from being onerous and unpleasant, was as close as human beings could get to divinity in this life.

 

Whether or not any of us took his theistic approach seriously, we could not ignore the related argument put forth by Hillel the Elder (d.10-20 CE), viz., "What is hateful to you, do not do to another." A later sage -- one of the Jesuses of the third decade of the first century CE -- is credited with this midrash on Hillel: "Treat others as you wish to be treated" -- in other words, self-regulation and restraint in the name of personal well-being and survival. This, by the way, is a major tenet of secular humanism.

 

Scratch the surface of any religious literature from Hinduism to Islam, from the teachings of Confucius to those of Lao Tze, and you'll find ethical wisdom similar to that of Hillel and of the New Testament Jesuses -- all about the regulation and discipline of human behavior for the sake of civilized societies in which people can live together in peace and security.

 

Or as my late father, the lawyer, once told me in remonstration over some minor juvenile offense: "The law is for your own good. Obey it and you will live well."

 

The religious zealots among the population of our domestic political parties and institutions have regulated by statute who can marry whom, what choices women have and have not with regard to their bodies, who can vote and who can be refused a ballot and on and on -- laws that, if tested by my father's rubric, would not permit the obedient to live particularly well at all.

 

Whilst regulating in the areas of personal freedom, these same politicians are aghast that the big, bad government should regulate industry and its pollution of the environment, its policies and procedures for employee safety. Heaven forefend that any regulation should be imposed, which might stand in the way of Paul Ryan's "makers" on their way to the bank -- especially if such a regulation might redound in some way to the benefit of "takers."

 

Men -- mostly men -- are running for state legislatures and Congress in next month's midterm election on the all too familiar-sounding platform of "getting government off our backs," by which they clearly mean dismantling the regulatory state. One special burr under their saddle is the federal regulation regarding subsidized school lunches, which requires less starch, less sugar and less fat.

 

Typically, the push-back is that government has no business dictating what foods schools offer their students, that if menus are to be regulated at all, they should be regulated by parents or at least the local school board. 


So it is that people thus minded take regulation to mean unfair restraint upon their perceived don't-fence-me-in freedoms. How is it, then, that they claim membership in conservative institutions of Catholicism and Protestantism, both of which are all about regulation?

 

It seems odd to me. 

 

*Hamlet, Act I, Scene 4, Line 16.

 

 


Copyright 2014 Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.
 


Readers Write
Re essay of 10/10/14 Obama Cares

 


James Boxall, Arlington, Virginia:
Another excellent column! Thanks for putting a human face on the good that has been done by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Michigan Chapter of the American College of Cardiology strongly supported Medicaid expansion. Senator Roger Kahn (R), a cardiologist, led the expansion forces in the Michigan Senate. In the interest of full disclosure I work for the American College of Cardiology (ACC) in the advocacy division as part of the state team. I interface with all chapters on state advocacy issues. Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi and Ohio ACC chapters supported Medicaid expansion. The plans adopted in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio fell far short of the provisions in the ACA. However, as you point out, many poor people who need health care are the winners.

 

Ilke Forman, Dayton, Ohio:

You as one who gives time and energy to working with the poor are entitled to speak and write about the ACA, which, as you point out, is the proper term for what many people, often in derision, call "Obamacare." Yes, of course it has helped our country. Only the rich hate it because it may end up raising their taxes -- a first-class seat on the airplane instead of a private jet. Poor babies.

 

Alon Mar�e, Metamora, Michigan:

Love how you made me see the term OBAMA CARE as OBAMA CARES! Brilliant! It makes me smile and feel warm inside. Not sure his opponents would feel the same.

 

Clarence McFee, St. Petersburg, Florida:

We get your articles at our temporary home here in the Sunshine State courtesy a friend. We are delighted to know that Obamacare is working in Detroit the way you say it is. We share your dismay that your legislature dragged its feet in implementing it by making Medicaid more available to those for whom it was created in the first place. FDR was right: we have a right to decent health.

 

David Withrow, Chagrin Falls, Ohio:

You report what you perceive as successes of Obamacare, and I appreciate your enthusiasm. However that "success" is is a strong indictment of the failure of our government and society. Our Declaration of Independence declares that all men (today it would be persons) have the unalienable right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Happiness derives from satisfaction and most long-term satisfaction results from the rewards from work, whether it is job satisfaction, compensation, or both. Your homilies tell us you have worked hard all your life, and still do. From your work you have received personal satisfaction, compensation, and are giving back. What motivated you to work so hard? Probably personal interests, parents, wide access to information, and the slang "intellectual curiosity", plus a great education. Our government and society abjectly fail to emphasize and promote the value of work, especially to the young. The precursor of work is education, at which we're failing many of our kids almost totally. The value of work needs to be hyped to every child - the urgency of work, the imperativeness of work, and the benefits of work to the body and soul. Bill Clinton's welfare reform got tens of thousands of people off the dole, but he started in the middle. If young people aren't motivated to work by their mid teen years, motivating them becomes much more difficult. Providing free meds, imposing the $ 10.20 minimum wage, implementing dumb-down Common Core, and encouraging slothfulness all are contrary to the opportunity, benefit and motivation to work, diminish the person in his/her own eyes, and are diminishing our society. Unfortunately, it seems that's what many Americans want.

 

Kathleen Probst, Tucson, Arizona:

We live in very weird times when helping people get and stay healthy becomes suspect in the eyes of politicians. Now we're all worried about Ebola. Isn't it better now that more people can go to the doctor without fear of destitution? Ebola without Medicaid or something like it would be just asking for disaster. Barack Obama may not be the best president ever. No one thought Harry Truman was worth a damn in his day. Now he's a hero. Obama will be seen that way. I hope he lives to see the day.

 

Patricia Yeager, Rochester, Minnesota:

Thank you for your defense of the Affordable Care Act. Do those enraged Republicans who hate it (and the President) so much not remember that Richard Nixon once proposed a national health care plan which would have been essentially Medicare for all? I live in a community where health is the main industry. Why should good health not be offered to all as a civil right? Good for your pharmacist friend.

 

Milt Stetkiw, Rochester, Michigan:

Yours was a poignant reminder of how a single persons effort can produce results for numerous unfortunate people. It has been long known that the GOP is missing a vital organ -- called a HEART, aka, social consciousness. One of the still unresolved political issues is how long will it take for the USA, the only country in the world unable to negotiate reasonable pharmaceutical prices for its citizens in critical need to accomplish this change. It is unfortunate that dark money and corporations are peopleare issues that are being pored over while the man in the street goes wanting for vital things such as reasonable prescription drugs.

 

Karen Mallet, Sandy Spring, Georgia:

The place where you volunteer must be a real blessing in Detroit where I once lived for a short time. It was bad enough then, but I fear it is worse. Thanks for showing how the Medicaid expansion works so well. My congratulations to your Crossroads group for making Medicaid work for the poor.

 

Joel Pugh, Dallas, Texas:

Two of my children work in the healthcare industry. They reported to me that Medicare and Medicaid patients had been told by hospital administrators that problems with their insurance coverage to give them effective care were a result of "Obamacare problems." The Medicaid problem turned out to be a cancellation after 24 days because the insurance must be reviewed every 30 days -- an administrative error, but one of the state employee -- not "Obamacare" -- another problem was with an 80-year-old guy who had been on Medicare for 15 years, again not Obamacare. Misinformation does not come only from FAUX news, it also comes from tea party healthcare workers. Sad that one thinks that they are 'doing their duty' by spreading misinformation.

 

Fred Fenton, Concord, California:

Obama is complicated, like most of us. You say he "cares," and the Affordable Care Act is evidence you are right. Certainly the governors who have rejected the expansion of Medicaid and all those smarmy politicians who have continued to oppose the ACA after it has proved to be a blessing care only for those who are well off and do not need government help. However, the President's failure to stop the daily deportation of hundreds of undocumented people without criminal records is evidence that Obama does not care. Families are torn apart and caused untold suffering by his failure to curb the inhumane actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

 

Tracey Martin, Southfield, Michigan:

Obama cared. Enough to pressure personally through a marginal Congressional majority a crucial advance toward health care for all Americans. That will not be his only legacy of office, but, if it were, it could suffice for history to list him among our good presidents.

 

Nicholas Molinari, Brick, New Jersey:

Thank you for your splendid defense of the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, most Congressional Democrats lack the backbone to defend it, to praise it and/or to take a smidgeon of credit for it. It is apparent that most Congressional Democrats do not hold the beneficiaries of the ACA in high enough esteem or, for that matter, in any esteem at all! Alas, no "contributions" (a.k.a. bribes) from such citizens to their campaigns! 

What do you think?
I'd like to hear from you. E-mail your comments to me at [email protected].