From Rex Murphy at the National Post:
Obama’s war against Christianity: When the Church struck back
Great essay. Especially
Murphy is right: contraception and abortion are secular sacraments, and we err in underestimating the importance of this dogma and these acts to the secular world-view. But I differ a bit though with Murphy's take that this was an unforced error on the part of the Obama administration.
It was no error. Obama's team is not stupid. They elected to the presidency a hard-left chronically unemployed cipher whose only discernible skill is reading a TelePrompTer. Obama's tacticians are very savvy political operators. They don't make unforced mistakes. I believe that the contraception insurance mandate serves several purposes:
1) Revs up the leftie base and leftie money, which Obama needs badly.
2) Attempts to split off some pro-contraception Catholics-- the majority of Catholics, sadly. Genuine pro-life Catholics won't vote for these guys anyway.
3) More importantly, it "defines deviancy down", in Daniel Patrick Moynihan's apt phrase. Every assault on Christianity lowers the bar for the next assault. By slamming the Church with an outrageous mandate-- a mandate that will will be withdrawn millimeter by millimeter until it is politically sustainable-- it makes the next assault easier for Christians to swallow. We've seen it with a host of assaults on school prayer and on civic religious expression. The initial lawsuits triggered nationwide outrage. Now most Christians take it in stride. There's a clever analogy about boiling a frog in water. If you turn the heat up to high immediately, the frog panics and escapes the pot. If you do it very gradually, the frog doesn't realize what's happening until it's too late.
4) Most importantly, it signals a shift in the strategy of the Culture of Death camp. The CoD folks have been losing massively on the issue of abortion. Abortion is a hard sell in the best of times-- any public relations firm will tell you that you've lost already when your opponents are called "pro-life". Every imaginable aspect of the abortion debate is going against the abortionists. The scientific fact that children in the womb are human beings is so obvious that it cannot be debated openly-- pro-deathers rely on circumlocution and evasion. Prenatal ultrasound is a catastrophe for abortionists, because it shows the mother the face of her child. Abortionists have been caught running criminal slaughterhouses and aiding and abetting child rape. Public opinion polls have shown a clear shift to the pro-life position. That's no surprise. The respondents of the polls no doubt are coming to realize that their very existence depended on their mother's pro-life decision. You can be pro-choice only if your mom was pro-life. That sinks in, after a while.
The pro-deathers understand that abortion is a lousy marquee for secularism. Apt, I might add, but lousy.
Contraception, on the other hand, is much more popular, even among otherwise conservative Christians. The deathers need to change the subject, and contraception, rather than abortion, will be the new subject. They will try to peel pro-contraception conservatives and independents off from the conservative religious base, and a Code of Omerta will settle over abortion. The abortion pill will be touted as just another form of contraception. Contraception will be marketed as The Most Effective Way to Reduce Abortions, despite a half-century of data showing lock-step increases in contraception and abortions. Contraceptive culture is promiscuous and inculcates a disrespect for the sanctity of life. Abortion is the culmination of contraceptive culture-- retroactive contraception for slackers, so to speak. But deathers will even be able to accuse pro-lifers of promoting abortion by opposing contraception. And of course, mandatory insurance coverage for contraception will swell the coffers of Planned Parenthood, which has always suffered under the Catch-22 that the people they want to contracept-- minorities and the poor-- are the people who can't afford contraception.
The lights have been on all night in the Ministry of Truth. Obama's contraception mandate is brilliant, and no mistake. Deathers have lost the abortion argument, and they know it.
The purpose of the mandate is to change the subject.Abortion Contraception.
There is precedent for this tactical shift. In the 1950's, after the Nazis did eugenics to its logical end, eugenicist Frederick Osborne-- "the respectable face of eugenic research in the post-war period"-- steered the eugenics movement from negative to positive eugenics. 'Eliminate the Unfit' became "Every Child a Wanted Child". Osborne insisted that people must be convinced to want eugenics for their own family. But it must not be called eugenics. Osborne had a name for the new tactic: "voluntary unconscious selection." Note the Darwinian attribution.
It was, and remains, extraordinarily effective. We are well on our way to eliminating entire classes of disabled people. Not curing them. Eliminating them.
Abortion Contraception. It is brilliant, and it will set the pro-life movement back on our heels. We have two avenues of reply:
1) Use the Obama Administration's effort to stomp on the Church to motivate Christians to drive Obama and the deathers from office.
2) We have to be able to make a succinct compelling case against contraception. The Catholic Church has such a case, and it is compelling and even sublime, but it is not succinct.
Making the case in the Twitter Era will not be easy.
The tactics are shifting.
Obama’s war against Christianity: When the Church struck back
Great essay. Especially
"Few things are as precious to the progressive mind as their dogma concerning sexuality and birth control... All in all, the controversy has been an instructive one — as a glimpse into the smooth, untroubled complacencies of the caring and superior secular mind, it is without many parallels."
Murphy is right: contraception and abortion are secular sacraments, and we err in underestimating the importance of this dogma and these acts to the secular world-view. But I differ a bit though with Murphy's take that this was an unforced error on the part of the Obama administration.
It was no error. Obama's team is not stupid. They elected to the presidency a hard-left chronically unemployed cipher whose only discernible skill is reading a TelePrompTer. Obama's tacticians are very savvy political operators. They don't make unforced mistakes. I believe that the contraception insurance mandate serves several purposes:
1) Revs up the leftie base and leftie money, which Obama needs badly.
2) Attempts to split off some pro-contraception Catholics-- the majority of Catholics, sadly. Genuine pro-life Catholics won't vote for these guys anyway.
3) More importantly, it "defines deviancy down", in Daniel Patrick Moynihan's apt phrase. Every assault on Christianity lowers the bar for the next assault. By slamming the Church with an outrageous mandate-- a mandate that will will be withdrawn millimeter by millimeter until it is politically sustainable-- it makes the next assault easier for Christians to swallow. We've seen it with a host of assaults on school prayer and on civic religious expression. The initial lawsuits triggered nationwide outrage. Now most Christians take it in stride. There's a clever analogy about boiling a frog in water. If you turn the heat up to high immediately, the frog panics and escapes the pot. If you do it very gradually, the frog doesn't realize what's happening until it's too late.
4) Most importantly, it signals a shift in the strategy of the Culture of Death camp. The CoD folks have been losing massively on the issue of abortion. Abortion is a hard sell in the best of times-- any public relations firm will tell you that you've lost already when your opponents are called "pro-life". Every imaginable aspect of the abortion debate is going against the abortionists. The scientific fact that children in the womb are human beings is so obvious that it cannot be debated openly-- pro-deathers rely on circumlocution and evasion. Prenatal ultrasound is a catastrophe for abortionists, because it shows the mother the face of her child. Abortionists have been caught running criminal slaughterhouses and aiding and abetting child rape. Public opinion polls have shown a clear shift to the pro-life position. That's no surprise. The respondents of the polls no doubt are coming to realize that their very existence depended on their mother's pro-life decision. You can be pro-choice only if your mom was pro-life. That sinks in, after a while.
The pro-deathers understand that abortion is a lousy marquee for secularism. Apt, I might add, but lousy.
Contraception, on the other hand, is much more popular, even among otherwise conservative Christians. The deathers need to change the subject, and contraception, rather than abortion, will be the new subject. They will try to peel pro-contraception conservatives and independents off from the conservative religious base, and a Code of Omerta will settle over abortion. The abortion pill will be touted as just another form of contraception. Contraception will be marketed as The Most Effective Way to Reduce Abortions, despite a half-century of data showing lock-step increases in contraception and abortions. Contraceptive culture is promiscuous and inculcates a disrespect for the sanctity of life. Abortion is the culmination of contraceptive culture-- retroactive contraception for slackers, so to speak. But deathers will even be able to accuse pro-lifers of promoting abortion by opposing contraception. And of course, mandatory insurance coverage for contraception will swell the coffers of Planned Parenthood, which has always suffered under the Catch-22 that the people they want to contracept-- minorities and the poor-- are the people who can't afford contraception.
The lights have been on all night in the Ministry of Truth. Obama's contraception mandate is brilliant, and no mistake. Deathers have lost the abortion argument, and they know it.
The purpose of the mandate is to change the subject.
There is precedent for this tactical shift. In the 1950's, after the Nazis did eugenics to its logical end, eugenicist Frederick Osborne-- "the respectable face of eugenic research in the post-war period"-- steered the eugenics movement from negative to positive eugenics. 'Eliminate the Unfit' became "Every Child a Wanted Child". Osborne insisted that people must be convinced to want eugenics for their own family. But it must not be called eugenics. Osborne had a name for the new tactic: "voluntary unconscious selection." Note the Darwinian attribution.
It was, and remains, extraordinarily effective. We are well on our way to eliminating entire classes of disabled people. Not curing them. Eliminating them.
1) Use the Obama Administration's effort to stomp on the Church to motivate Christians to drive Obama and the deathers from office.
2) We have to be able to make a succinct compelling case against contraception. The Catholic Church has such a case, and it is compelling and even sublime, but it is not succinct.
Making the case in the Twitter Era will not be easy.
The tactics are shifting.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteGolly, if your opinions are typical of most Americans, then the American political system is even more screwed up and dysfunctional than I'd thought.
Obama wouldn't be considered far left in any other Western liberal democracy. He'd be considered respectably moderate.
Obamacare wouldn't be considered a radical program. It would be considered inadequate, with the ideal being central universal health cover of the entire population, with private insurance available as an extra to cover ancillary items such as dental and optics.
The American system of having many insurance companies in business to make a profit for their shareholders and providing inadequate insurance for their members is grossly unfair. For example, parents should be able to get immunization for their children, without out of pocket expenses, because it benefits the community as a whole. With the American system, even after the insurance companies pay their benefit, parents are often still faced with a bill running to hundreds of dollars.
Bach,
DeleteAmerica is a nation of contrasts, in many ways. In my time living there I found it to be increasingly polarized, with a growing margin or gap in the centre. Obama is seen as a radical because that is his political base. Dr Egnor is only making the same observation that anyone opposing that administration is obliged to!
Incidentally, many folks here in Canada see the current US administration as the most radical in a generation.
You state '....then the American political system is even more screwed up and dysfunctional than I'd thought.'
In this last idea of the sentence, you are correct. It is far more 'more screwed up and dysfunctional' than many people realize, especially most Americans.
But to blame it on Dr Egnor's observations is unfair. He is obliged to believe what his senses tell him to be true.
Mr Obama's base was/is the hard left.
To reciprocated his radicalism, the GOP would have to run Rush Limbaugh.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteGawd, there are virtually no hard left politicians in the United States. There are hardly any social democrats either, as an article in the British liberal weekly 'New Statesman' noted a few weeks ago, listing perhaps 20, most of whom weren't politicians.
The fact remains. What you and Michael call hard left is relative to the American spectrum, and in most other liberal Western democracies would be considered moderate.
It certainly illustrates American exceptionalism. American politics is extremely conservative compared to most other Western countries.
"The fact remains. What you and Michael call hard left is relative to the American spectrum, and in most other liberal Western democracies would be considered moderate."
DeleteI am not sure what your point is, Bach. Even if what you state was true, so what?
That what we call central you call right, and what we call left your call central?
Tomato, tomato.
We are speaking about AMERICAN politics, so this is lingua franca.
You going to accuse me of driving on 'the wrong' side of the road next? Come on, now!
If you live in a left of centre nation, the American left will seem less radical to you than an American. Sure. If you get into a cool bath after standing in the freezing cold, it will feel warmer.
The Catholic bishops have revealed themselves to be a bunch of bitter old men who know they’ve lost. They’ve watched their power and influence wane in the aftermath of the church child abuse scandal and now they look out into the pews and see a sea of elderly people and couples with two or one or no children making a mockery of their contraception dictates.
ReplyDeleteNow that the Bishops have been presented with a compromise that relieves these religiously affiliated institutions from having to pay for contraception we find out that it’s not good enough. What the bishops really want is the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act,” which would exempt both insurance providers and purchasers — and not just those who are religiously affiliated — from any mandate to cover items of services that is contrary to either’s “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
That’s right, the Bishops want legislation that will allow some Americans dictate to other Americans what type of insurance coverage they are allowed to have based on whatever religious dictate a particular employer may fancy. We believe “X” so you shall be denied “Y”. That’s what passes for religious liberty in the United States today. Of course real religious liberty would allow individuals to make healthcare decisions for themselves based on their own convictions, not those imposed on them by their employer.
-KW
Yes! Let's allow individuals to "...make healthcare decisions for themselves...". We agree!! I think...
DeleteNow. How are we going to do this? The only way I can see it getting done is to adopt a free market fee for service system. No government or insurance payments. Consult with a doctor, then pay him with your own money. What a radical idea. Their prices will be affordable, because they want to practice. Competition controls the prices. Imagine the cost reductions when we fire not only the federal employees at HHS but also the employees of Aetna, etc.
Why should a third party (the government) pay for a material good for anyone? Y'all going to set up dating insurance to take care of the unpopular kids who can't get a date?
David, No government health care and no insurance? You’re crazy. What you’re describing is the Somali health care system. Not a single successful healthcare system in the word operates the way you describe.
DeleteAnonymous. That was the system we had before World War II. It would be a display of profound ignorance to equate the society of the United States in the twenties and thirties with Somalia. Are you doing that?
DeleteInsurance is intended for catastrophic events. It is not intended to pay for day to day expenses. Setting up a third party to pay for ordinary expenses just increases the costs for everyone by adding an administrative apparatus.
The other way health insurance drives up costs is by making this HUGE PILE of money available for the vendors of medical services. Why wouldn't they charge as much as possible? You can observe the same mechanism in college tuition. A HUGE PILE of money chasing a fixed amount of product has driven the cost of a college education out of reach. Unless you can access the HUGE PILE of money.
Government sets out to make things affordable and makes them prohibitively expensive instead.
I agree whole-heartedly with David. The third-party payer "insurance" system in medicine is at the core of the explosion of health care costs. Imagine the cost of home owner's insurance if we used insurance to buy everything for our homes-- furniture, televisions, stereo systems, etc.
DeleteI support the medical savings account approach. We should get tax cuts to set aside money we use for routine care, and only have insurance for catastrophic coverage.
Our current system is the problem, not the solution, and government is largely responsible.
ReplyDeleteMike,
Great OpEd.
I actually posted the whole thing on the Faustian over the weekend, as well.
On your analysis.
You make some very interesting points.
A couple of thoughts.
I think I understand why the author feels this is a mess, than a devised strategy that will work.
I would not disagree with you on the ideas that Obama's handlers are cynical and intelligent, nor that they have no agenda.
But, I think the people behind this latest push had underestimated the response. That underestimation should be exploited. I am not exactly sure how, but I do think there has been a slight lull in the momentum of those proponents of Hedonism and Barbarism you describe (quite aptly!) as 'Culture of Death camp' in US Federal policy. This is perhaps were we part company?
It seems to me that Comrade O and company may have calculated these events, but they miscalculated the results. That does not surprise me considering the central philosophy of groups like these are not properly and strategically inclusive of practical/functional reality, and rely heavily on theory.
They are victims of their own political tunnel vision, and I think this lack-lustre compromise of Obama with insurance is a clear indication of that myopia.
This 'dogma' surrounding abortion birth control is a blind spot and weakness in the 'Culture of Death'.
Secondly, I am not sure what your personal ideas on contraception are Doctor, but I am aware of the Roman position.
Correct me if I am wrong but it is an ancient interpretation that deems all sex acts should be for love and offer at least the potential of reproduction. If I am correct here also, modern Roman Catholic teachings deem it allowable to be abstinent within such a relationship in order to plan a family properly.
This is not a position that I agree with in it's entirety. On the love the Vatican and I are at a 100% consensus. I will not attempt to make some grand case against Rome or it's position. I have no desire either way. I see the idea as noble in nature, and seeking the right ends - but by what I see as unrealistic means of degree.
I see the frame or set (in the mathematical sense) of these ideas on creative potential as the relationship, not the individual sex acts - the unions.
CNTD
DeleteI, personally, see the use of contraceptive devices that prevent pregnancy as perfectly moral within a monogamous, sanctified, loving, and willingly procreative marriage. They have and will bear children, the devices are simply a means to control the 'when'.
I see these devices much as I see a fine whiskey or deep red wine. A single malt, or a merlot are splendid things that can enhance an already great occasion or moment in time - but they can also have GREAT potential for abuse. A nice red wine may be found at the alter, blessed for the Eucharist or another vintage may be found at the meal table of a family feast. A good old whiskey can warm the cockles and keep a conversation between old friends going all night, or until the logs burn down. But they can both ruin homes, childhoods, one's health and literally kill and cause death of innocents.
In a similar line of thought to this boozy analogy, I would suggest treating the contraception issue in more of the style of a temperance movement, and not a prohibition movement.
Making these devices available for responsible people to use is not the same as actively promoting their use and giving them away in schools - which is exactly what the current situation is. I am for the tolerance, and firmly against the promotion.
I am not against redirecting and harnessing potential for the good of the family and mankind, but I am against thwarting it outright. That snuffing out of all potential, it seems to me, is the black heart of the sin of killing, or wilfully and forever preventing life from coming to be.
The way I think most people see it is that we have a duty to our Creator and to our ancestors to procreate, if we can. We owe it to our children to bring them into being. They DESERVE that chance.
Any father or mother a;ready knows this, and I suspect those who are not can feel it.
Your ideas regarding the agenda to connect birth control to abortion in order to 'sell', I find to be spot on. We are back on the same page here, doctor. I would simply add that this is exactly why a clear definition needs to be made between real contraceptive (ie prevent conception) devices as opposed to chemical abortion kits and pills. The attempt to divide that you have noted, Dr Egnor, exposes the soft spot in their ideology: Life potential begins at conception. That is why we, as human beings, feel different about a condom and a 'morning after' pill.
A condom is the minutes BEFORE machine (sorry ladies, I'm a busy guy).
Before? After? WHAT?
That 'what' can be exposed if the line is drawn between chemical abortions and contraception are clearly defined for ALL to see.
As evidence of a similar reversal along a different line, witness what the exposure of the 20th century 'femicide' has done to the whole 'a woman's right' argument for abortion on demand.
"Making the case in the Twitter Era will not be easy."
Anything as complex as a compound sentence is no longer easy.
Evolution? HAH!
If society is a bellwether, the evidence is of the opposite nature.
Crus:
DeleteSorry I didn't see your post-- I usually check. Great minds think alike!
Regarding contraception, I agree with the Roman Church's view-- that it is a violation of natural law, even in marriage.
"Sorry I didn't see your post-- I usually check."
DeleteNo worries, just figured I would link it in case anyone felt like reading the whole thing.
"Great minds think alike!"
You know it!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was just talking about this contraceptives idea with my adult son.
ReplyDeleteHe made a rather a series interesting points regarding their use. To understand his ideas, you have to understand we live in Ontario where the government labels cigarettes and even some liquor with warnings.
LIKE THESE
First he noted they are allowed to be legally purchased by people below the age of legal consent (16 here in Ontario). He compared this to selling booze or smokes to under age kids (19 here in Ontario). He further wondered why they condoms are not required, as with cigarettes, to be labelled with disclaimers and warnings. Why, for example, do they not have a white box proclaiming 'Promiscuous sex can lead to loneliness, and DEATH', or 'Promiscuity kills your partner too!', or a picture of children with plaintiff stares that with the text 'Please don't cheat on us Daddy'?
He added (I am paraphrasing here) 'Okay, maybe the sex itself is not like a cigarette, but the condom is analogous to the filter - the butt.'
This idea he backed, very astutely, by saying NOT warning people of these potential dangers on a condom is akin to taking the warnings of filtered cigarette packages, or selling fancy cigarette filters with no warnings about smoking on them.
Um, your son doesn't get it. It's not the condoms that should come with the warning label, it's his johnson that should.
DeleteThe condom is the seatbelt in the car. It's not 100% effective against disaster, but if you're going to drive, it's a lot safer.
I'm curious, Crus - how many times have you had sex when you absolutely didn't want to create a baby? Have you been with a woman outside of marriage? Do you tell your son about those statistics?
In those parts of society where underage sex is rampant and parental control is limited, do you honestly feel the right first step is to deny birth control to minors? Ask your son THAT question.
OH, and finally - there ARE warning labels for sex. They're called "sex education classes". They're mandated in many states, and they're uniformly condemned by the religious right. Mention that to your son as well - I'd like to hear his opinion on educating minors about sex, pregnancy and STDs.
"Um, your son doesn't get it."
DeleteOh, I assure he does. But he is young, sharp, handsome, friendly and will - with some good fortune and grace - learn to better control himself as he grows older. He is at least 'focused' at this juncture.
"It's not the condoms that should come with the warning label, it's his johnson that should. "
LMAO! That is almost EXACTLY what I said when he first put the idea out.
"The condom is the seatbelt in the car. It's not 100% effective against disaster, but if you're going to drive, it's a lot safer."
Not a bad analogy considering the dangers, but I think the smoking is a better fit (pun intended). It too, obviously has it's limits.
Smoking is purely hedonistic, as is recreational sex. People do not need to hump or have a smoke to drive to work etc etc.
"i'm curious, Crus - how many times have you had sex when you absolutely didn't want to create a baby? "
Why should this matter?
If you mean in the spur of the moment and for passion's sake: Frequently.
But I have always wanted to create a child, have done so, and still would welcome another. For me it is about expressing my love, and part of the expression is the natural result of that act: Life.
"Have you been with a woman outside of marriage?"
That is utterly irrelevant and increasingly personal, but I will humour you this far: Yes.
What you don't seem to get is that what I have done in the past, or even could do today, and what I think are ideal are frequently at odds.
"Do you tell your son about those statistics?"
My son is what you folks call a reservist and a student in his mid 20's. He reads his own stats, has his own interests, and makes his own arguments.
On occasion he borrows a book, a surfboard, a couple of dogs, or my truck - but he is his own man with his own ideas.
"In those parts of society where underage sex is rampant and parental control is limited, do you honestly feel the right first step is to deny birth control to minors?"
I think a direct social intervention is mandated if the situation is that bad. Condoms are the least of the problems if you have a situation like you have described. Send in the troops.
On age in general: I do think there should be limits, but I don't think that was my son's point. At least that is not how I took it... and I know him pretty good.
"Ask your son THAT question."
Will do. Look for the response.
'OH, and finally - there ARE warning labels for sex. They're called "sex education classes".
No. Those courses are not warning labels for adults.
They are birds and bees lessons/instructions for kids (11-15), at least up here.
My son went through them. I saw his notebook checked his work etc, he told me all about them. Good for a laugh. But he knew it all already.
"They're mandated in many states, and they're uniformly condemned by the religious right."
We have them all our systems here. Public and Private. No problems. But, like I said it is basic reproductive health stuff. All the 'lifestyles' and gay stuff is MUCH later and elective (for the teen). There seems to be a real concern from the gay lobby about this too regarding 'outing' of young people. There was a good article in the Globe about it no so long ago. I will see if I can find it ;)
"Mention that to your son as well - I'd like to hear his opinion on educating minors about sex, pregnancy and STDs."
Sure. I will.
Again: Look for the response.
My own ideas are that they should be educated, when thought to be at a reasonable level of risk. This should be something the local community decides, IMO.
"Smoking is purely hedonistic, as is recreational sex. People do not need to hump or have a smoke to drive to work etc etc."
DeleteI have to disagree with you there. The desire for sex is driven by millions of years of evolution. If you call sex hedonistic, you might as well call urinating hedonistic as well - we are biologically compelled to do both. I've never once had a physical reaction to the sight of a cigarette.
But back to my questions about your personal life - I would find it hard to tell people to "forget contraception - just say no" if I'm not willing to do it myself. One of the main reasons I promote literature and science, give time and money to charity, watch almost no television, read voraciously, haven't come even remotely close to cheating on my wife, don't own a gun, work hard, pay my taxes and generally try to lead an exemplary life is so I can tell my children "Do as I DO".
But people who freely use contraception and just as freely tell others not to - they see things differently than I do. They're satisfied with saying "Do as I say, but don't do as I do because I'm a sinner." In my book, that's too easy - a cop out.
Condoms and the pill should be embraced with open arms by Catholics. Given the fact that 25-50% of conceived embryos are lost in miscarriage, the use of condoms and the pill has saved more little souls than all the efforts of all religions in history.
But they're not embraced because this is about control.
If people are less miserable in this life, then they won't feel such need for the afterlife, and the Church loses a little more of its hold on them. There's a reason why Christians systematically destroyed the thousands and thousands of books and writings by the Epicureans and other classical philosophers who tried to find a way to live better in THIS life. Without suffering, without the afterlife, Christianity holds little power. "Love thy enemy", beautiful as it is, isn't enough (and as Michael demonstrates with nearly every blog post, it's just too hard a practice to implement).
"I have to disagree with you there. The desire for sex is driven by millions of years of evolution. "
DeleteWell, if we move along those lines, so is oral fixation. We eat and ingest things to feel good. Smoking is just an extension of that.
It is utterly Eurocentric to think otherwise.
People have been ingesting 'feel good' stuff for as long as there has been records.
But, I will concede it is a limited analogy (filters). I just think it fits better than seatbelts.
"One of the main reasons I promote literature and science, give time and money to charity, watch almost no television, read voraciously, [...] "Do as I DO".
I do much the same. I just note my own failures realistically. I want my children to know how to win when they can, and also to recognized their own weaknesses and faults. I do not want them to put their faith in a rubber or device, but in their own self control.
'Condoms and the pill should be embraced with open arms by Catholics. Given the fact that 25-50% of conceived embryos are lost in miscarriage, the use of condoms and the pill has saved more little souls than all the efforts of all religions in history."
Don't you mean open legs? As an Anglican Catholic I see the issue as a non-issue between loving people. Promiscuity is the problem, not devices to prevent untimely pregnancies.
Look, I do not know how I can be more clear?
I am NOT against making condoms available, I am AGAINST promoting sexual promiscuity as 'safe' due to the use of a 'filter'.
It is NOT safe. It kills.
In fact, you would find, if you endeavoured to ask, that I am MORE so against promiscuity than I am against homosexuality (monogamous).
THAT is what I have taught and will teach my kids. Of my own faults and mistakes, they are WELL aware. I do not hide them.
I am not against contraception in and of itself.
I am against promiscuity and abortion.
Regarding you last points, it suffices to say that I could not disagree more.
There is no real point in me stating the contrary, or posting examples of opposites - you are set in your ways. I was once that way myself...or close to it.
The only part that truly interests me is that you concede the commandment of Christ to Love as 'beautiful'.
My God command that LOVE is the most important thing of all. That is your purpose: To Love.
If you can LOVE, you will find Him - here or there, now or in the after. All love leads to Him, eventually. It returns to the source.
It seems to me you understand that much, and I am glad of it.
No need to preach it all at you.
Now to your questions for my son, who is snoring next to me on the couch (day off)... but replied before he nodded off.
"In those parts of society where underage sex is rampant and parental control is limited, do you honestly feel the right first step is to deny birth control to minors?"
DeleteResponse: Short answer is no. But he will not concede it is a 'first step' in any sense of the idea, and challenges you to concede that condoms for children is NOT a solution to the various social problems associated with child sex. It is only a 'band aid on a gushing wound'.
""Mention that to your son as well - I'd like to hear his opinion on educating minors about sex, pregnancy and STDs.""
He is for it, and so am I.
*** that is if by Minors you mean teens***
Delete"That’s right, the Bishops want legislation that will allow some Americans dictate to other Americans what type of insurance coverage they are allowed to have based on whatever religious dictate a particular employer may fancy."
ReplyDeleteLol. No one is forcing them to work for institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church.
R Obrien, Once again you are woefully misinformed. As I clearly stated in my comment the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” legislation the Bishops are supporting applies to all employers, not just those nominally affiliated with the church. It could be a Christian Scientist that owns multiple car dealerships, or a Wiccan that owns a restaurant being given the ability to deny their employees health insurance coverage they find immoral.
Delete-KW