President Obama Is Between a Roman Rock and a Republican Hard Place

Blog Signature

 

I am not much of a political writer.  I don’t really like arguing about politics, because I feel ill-informed most of the time.  I feel like I am ill-informed, because much of the information in our “news” media is biased (most likely for the purpose of stirring controversy in order to boost ratings and advertising revenue – but, that’s another rant).  I feel like the available information regarding politics and politicians is biased, because politics is an industry that puts some in control and makes many wealthy.  Oh, for Pete’s sake, I think you get the point – I digress.

 

In any case, however, I am occasionally stirred to write about political goings on.  Today, I have finally been agitated enough that I need to pose a question to the public, just to make sure I understand the facts (And you, out there in cyber-space, are as public as it gets – a well kept secret that someone should let the general population under the age of 25 in on some time).  I am talking about the recent brouhaha surrounding the Obama administration’s determination that health insurance plans ought to cover birth control – this, of course, includes health insurance plans provided by charities, hospitals, and universities.  This, of course, sets off the Roman Catholic Church (and probably others), because they run many charities, hospitals, and universities – institutions that belong to the church and employ Christians under the spiritual jurisdiction of the church.  Necessary qualifications should probably be made.  For instance, I am sure these institutions employ non-Christians.  However, I am too lazy to go looking for all such qualifications on a Thursday afternoon.  This is why I have you.

 

As I understand things, the Republican field of presidential candidates smells blood in the water, and has lunged at the opportunity to snatch up the Conservative Christian vote in the primaries.  They have spent a couple of days now relentlessly attempting to draw a mental association between President Obama and religious intolerance.  They are declaring that another term under the Obama administration will herald an age of Christian persecution at the hands of the federal government.  They intimate that another term will mean that more babies will be aborted, more people will be on welfare, and that the quality of life that all Americans experience will be diminished – all because the Obama administration wants Catholic (nay, ALL) women to have access to free birth control.

 

All of this causes me to gape stupidly.  First, I might be mistaken here, but where are all of these Roman Catholics that actually follow the church’s instruction not to use birth control?  Second, I might be mistaken, but doesn’t this equation follow logic: more birth control = fewer pregnancies; fewer pregnancies = fewer abortions; fewer abortions = better lives for women and the country as a whole?  So, somehow more birth control equals more abortions, and an open attack on religious freedom.  Third, doesn’t the following equation also follow logic: Fewer unwanted children = women that are healthier, happier, more productive; women that are healthier, happier, more productive = half of our nation being a more positive influence than when they are saddled with unwanted children;  preventing the conception of unwanted children = a better alternative to people being irresponsible (and in some cases criminal) and having an abortion as a way to deal with irresponsibility (or criminal behavior)?  Last, I am an educator at a private institution, and we get to set the agenda for our mission.  As some of the American Bishops have complained, the new rule violates their ability to decide what their instititions are “about.”  Well, point of order here, when private institutions accept federal money, they are giving up the right to call the shots exclusively – federal government’s money = federal government’s rules.  Are these institutions taking federal money?  I don’t know about all of these questions, so I am asking you, the people of the internets.  Help a brother out.

 

Advertisements

DC Catholic Church to End Service to the Poor because of Homophobia

james

National monument, or secret effort of the century-long homosexual plot to take over Washington DC?

If one were cynical, one might be tempted to think that the Catholic archdiocese of Washington was attempting to coerce leaders into putting a stop on a bill that would legalize gay marriage in the District of Columbia.   But since we’re never cynical ’round these parts of the web, we’ll just go with the official line from the church: “we are afraid that gays might infiltrate our ranks, or that we might have to be nice to them and offer them blankets.” 

Right, so anyway,  the Catholic church is threatening to stop all service to the poor of Washington DC if the bill legalizing gay marriage is passed.  This bill also requires any organization which uses city money to not discriminate against homosexuals.  The church is afraid that if they continue to partner with the city to run 1/3 of DC’s homeless shelters that they would be required to hire gay people to work in those shelters (because there’s a huge line of queers knocking down Catholic Charities’ door with job applications) , they’re also afraid that they might have to–God forbid–extend their poverty relief and adoption services to gay people (gayness is contagious, it’s in the Bible). 

Allowing gays to be part of the Catholic church or any church would, of course, be a serious reversal of the status quo (as it stands there aren’t any gay catholics, or gay bible college students), but are they really willing to walk away from Jesus (personified in the least of these) over it?  In the words of Stephen Colbert,  “After all, Jesus said, ‘If you want to be perfect sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor…unless a couple of dudes register at the Pottery Barn, in which case f**k the poor.'”

I’m all for making a moral stand on some things (probably not this thing, but some things), but when your moral stand means you have to move from the sheep section to the goat section of Matthew 25, is it still moral, or is it just a stand?