Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Contraception, Freedom and the Catholic Church: Insulting The Maverick Conservative

Th enes this week is that all kinds of Cathoic institutions are taking on Presidennt Obama 9who definitely deserves it) as to this EMPLOYER MANDATE (o more Constitutional than the individual mandate, in my view): you know, the ObamaCare regulation that FORCES emplyers to provide "free' contraceptoin coerage in any health coverage provided to employees.

Problem?  Don't I agree with the Catholic Church (against which Obama and the left are definitely WAGIN WAR, as contrasted with the "phony war" (the descriiptoin used, by the way, for the initial period after the beginning of World War II) that Obama, the leftist media, and other leftists are trying to assert that the gOP is trying to wage on women?  I do agree with the fact that Obama, the leftist media and other leftists are engaged in a WAR against Christians in general, and people who actualy believe in the Catholic religion in particular.  There is a problem here, though.  This is about FREEDOM, and not really abuot RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  Thus, the Catholic Church, conservatives, and GOP politicians who concentrate on this being an "issue' of RELIGIOUIS FREEDOM leave me totally cold.  As the headline states, this is an INSULT to The Maverick Conservative.

Let me put it plainly to you: Are not MY principles just as important to me as religious principles are to Catholics?  I DARE yu, or any Catholic, to say this is not true.  Be careful, in fact. Who do you thnk is more FIRM in his principles AGAINST ABORTION:  The Maverick Consrvative or the general run of Catholic?  NO Catholic in this country, or in the world, including the Poper himself, is more adamantly against abortion that I am.  No. I am not against "contraceptioin", as an agnostic.  My case agaisnt abortion is that it is the moral equivalent of infanticide.  Look at it this way: I substantially all of teh Caholics in this country were on MY side on abortion (you might  consider the late Ted Kenneday and Nancy Pelosi), we wouuld not have legal abortion onn demand in this country.  Yep.  I jsut said that CAHOTLICS--those who obviusly do not really beleive in their own religion--can be regarded as responsible for legal abrotion on demand in this country . Too many Catholics (and mainstream Protetant churches) are way too "elastic" in their beliefs for me to accept that they really believe in the religoin in which they profess to believe.  That is what I liked about Rick Santorum: he seemed to really BELIEVE in his religioin (which is exactly the problem the INTOLERANT peole of the leftist media, and the rest of the left, had with Santorum). Do oy doubt that abortion would still be illlegal in this country if 95%, or even 90%0%,of supposed Caholics really BELIEVED in their church's teaching that abortion is infanticide (a teaching in which I agree, although not rfor religiuis reasons)? 

As stated, I do not oppose contraceptin--whether as a matter of religion or a matter of conscience.  However, a a mater of CONSCIENCE, I would refuse--as an employer-to provide an inssurance policy that pays for pills which CHEMICALLY INDUCE ABORTIN. ("morning after" pills). But that is actually a minor point, and a subset of the real pooblem here.  As a matter of CONSCIENCE, and because I believe in condradicts the principles upon which this country is founded, I oppose FORCING ANYONE (Cahtolic or not) to provide "free" contraceptin coverage. As stated in the previous article, why sould I believe in the Federal Government FORCING "health coverage" which PREFERS "free" contraception to the same sort of coverage for CANCER DRUGS and CANCER  TREATMENT?  This is a matter of FREEDOM-not a matter of RELIGOUS FREEDOM (except as a subset of the overall issue of FREEDOM). The Federal Government was not given th ePOWER (in our Constitution) to TELL employers what kind of health coverage they must provide.  And even if the Federal Government somehow had that power, it would be a VIOILATION OF FREEDOM to use it this way. 

Again, I have just a s much "conscience" as any Catholic", and more than many.  Why is the "conscience" of Catholic organizations more important than the conscience of agnostics like me?  The concept is absurd.  Do we say that a "pacifist" has to base his principles on RELIGION?   Not the last time I checked, and if we did say thaat we would be WRONG.  You can be a "conscietious objector" on grounds of CONVICTIN as strong as any theocratic principle. The RELIGIUS aspect of this is the LEAST of it.  This is not about religion. It is about FREEDOM,, and the limits of what government should be allowed to tell you to do.  If I, as an employer, think that a health insurance policy not providing contraception coverage, or not providing totally "fee" contraception, is the BETTER VALUE for my employees getting the coverage that I feel is important (at a reasonable cost), then I should have the FREEDOM to buy such a policy . Obama, and the left, on the other hand, want to TELL ME exactly what HAS to be in any health insurance coverage I buy . Notice how this makes  President Obama a LIAR--his designatin as Liar-in n-Chief being no accident.  Remember how Obama SOLD ObamaCare by saying that people could KEEP the coverage they had?  Taht was a LIE, wasn't it?  And it was ALWEAYS a lie.  How can you "keep the coverage you have" , when the Federal Government is going to INSIST that the Federal Government CONTROL what is in health insurance policies?  Even if they try to "grandfather" in a DECEPTION, the fact is taht insurance companies are not going to get into taht can of wors.  The  "insurance you have' WILL NOT EXIST, and the FAILURE of our media to poiint this out alone proves that "joounalism" in today's world is deserving of nothing but total CONTEMPT.  Yep.  You ""journalists" out there know what I think of yuf you.  Sure, there are probably a few exceptions, but they are so few and far between as to hardly be worth mentioning. 

You can see why I DESPISE the GOP on this one. Sure, the BILL introduced in Congress would REPEAL the whole regulation, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  But GOP politicians TALKED only abut "religious freedom", as they TARGETED the "Catholic vote".  Mitt Romney (see next article) has NEVER made the case that this proposed regulation is a violation of EVERYONN'S freedom--not just Catholics. If the GOIP cannot even make this case, what good is the party?  No good at all, as far as I can see. They knew that the "bill" was never going to pass.  And they have refused to make this "free contraception" debate about what it is: a debate about FREEDOM (not about contraception at all). This is like conservatives pasing a law in Congress PROHIBITING abortion health insurance coverage throughout the country.  I know.  Some conservatives--not "real" conservatives--might like that idea.  But it is a violation of FREEDOM, and of the very concept of la limited central government, for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to FORCE people to have only "government approved" health insurance coverage. Notice that Mitt Romney is right (although you get the idea he doesn't really believe it): it is much more defensible on a sTATE level, closer to the people. Even on a state, level, this kind of heavy-handed FORCE would be a terrible mistake.  But it is more than a "mistake' on a Federal level  It is a betrayal of everything upon which this country was founded. 

Reading between the lines, you may get the idea that I don't think much of the Catholic religin.  Well, unlike CNN,, Bill Maher and Obama, I am TOLERANT:  not anti-C caholic.  And the Caholic Chruch (if not true of too manny individual Catholics) is my ally on abortion.   And I am, after all, an agnostic, and have been so since at least the age of 13 (as I now approach my 65th birthday). But, even you would probably be right to surmise that I don't much like the Catholic religion, AS A RELIGION.  Don't forget that I was raised Presbyterian, even though I quicky became an agnostic (by that age of 13). . Thus, I was not raised with a favorable view of the Catholic religion.  And I now too much about the Reformatin, and the practices of teh Catholic Chruch (the excesses) taht led to the Reformatin.  To me, the Catholic Church is more abut TRAPPINGS than about BELIEF (for way too many Catholics), and the Catholic Chruch emphasizes the trappings too much.  I respect BELIEVING Cathoics, but I am not sure the curch puts enough emphasis on "belief" in the fundamental principles of Christianity.  Deosthe Catholic Chruch really encourage "cafe" Catholics, who pick and choose what they want to believe, so long as the priest "forgives" them.  Was Sir Walter Scott right, centureis ago, when he implied (in Kenilworth, and maybe other novels) that Catholicism is an ideal religin for rogues, as they can do whatever wrongs they want and then "confess" (getting all of their sins washed away).  Again, I am an agnostic, and don't profess to know that much about the modern Caholic Chrurch.  But I think you can assume it is not my "favorite" religion--despite abortion--if an agnostic can be said to have a "favorite" religin. 

I remain INSULTED at the way tis "debate" over "free contraceptin" has gone. It is really a debate over FORCED health coverage, and the Federal Government FORCING preference for "favored" things.  This is a matter of FREEDOM, and not religion.  I resent the implication that the "conscience" of an agnostic is not just as imprtant as the "conscience" of a Cahtolic.  "Religius freedom" is ony a subset of this overall principle of freedom.  I wish it was being argued taht way (e3ven thoiugh I understand the POLITICS of that is gong on: the Obama BRIBE of what he hopes are stupid women, adn the GOP attempt to make inroads on Caholics.  meanwhile, the Catholic organizations are only interested in their NARROW "rights", and not in FREEDOM for us all  This whole "debate" is going in the wrong directino. 

P.S  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  Yes, I probably shuld warn about "bad typing" as well. 

No comments: