My First Mind

Momma taught me to go with my gut.

She didn't oppose thinking things through, and recommended that with every decision you consider the pros and cons. But, she said in the end, you trust your gut. Since Momma's a Christian just like me, she used terms like the "Spirit of Discernment."

When this birth control thing broke, my gut said this wasn't about people forcing a religion to do something it found immoral. My gut said it was about choice, and the need to limit choices. In my gut, I knew that when it comes to core issues like abortion or birth control or even divorce, the Catholic church isn't interested in compromise or allowing people to deal with God's consequences for their choices. No, the Catholic church has certain issues where compromise is impossible and birth control is one of them.

My gut told me that.

But, I wavered in that belief. I listened to folks who said it was just about a fear of government intrusion into religion, not a desire to limit people's choices. Those people thought that if the government could find a way to allow the Catholic Church to wash its hands, to make sure it wasn't required to directly pay for or provide certain services, things would be ok. Sadly, those people were wrong.

The White House has offered a compromise that would allow the Catholic Church to avoid directly paying for birth control, but that would still provide it for free to women who want it and work for Catholic business or attend Catholic schools. It placed the burden for payment on insurance companies, and while it's true that those companies might pass along those costs in higher premiums, it still means the Catholic Church wouldn't be paying for it directly. The church could reasonably claim its innocence.

 That plan has been rejected.

Some might see this as a principled stand. It might appear to be an example of the church refusing to allow practices that conflict with its beliefs, even indirectly. Those people must have forgotten that we're talking about the Catholic Church.

You know, the Catholic Church that turned a blind eye to a worldwide sexual abuse scandal that ruined the lives of thousands of young boys who were molested repeatedly by priests the church protected from prosecution or punishment. Men the church allowed to resume their duties and molest again. Abuse that continued for decades and still has not been properly revealed because of the church's attempts to first deny that it occurred and then to cover up its scope.

Yeah, that Catholic Church.

So the church's principled stand on birth control, much like its principled stand on abortion, feels false. Those stands seem like just the type of hypocritical tripe that people always accuse religious groups of wallowing in. The church is not in the business of standing up and speaking loudly against all sin or even most sin. It's in the business of focusing on certain sins that overwhelmingly impact the lives of women.

And my first mind tells me something ain't right there.

Share

The Trouble With Believers

You know, "believers" do the strangest things.

By believers, I mean Christians, but it can be applied to true believers of any religious bent or ideology. People who become completely and totally invested in something to the point that they sacrifice all vestiges of their God-given ability to critically process information can be quite interesting. I am a believer, but I'm not that sort of believer.

The reason for this observation lies in an issue currently taking up valuable space in our news cycle. Recently, President Obama has been lambasted for a requirement in his healthcare law that mandates that faith-based groups provide mandatory contraceptive coverage for their employees. The rule has driven Catholics insane because of their prohibitions on birth control, and the feeling that the government is forcing them to violate the tenets of their faith. I heard Mitt Romney appealing to that very sentiment at a recent rally, telling the crowd that they are under attack by people who don't share their belief in God.

Poppycock.

No one is forcing Catholics or any other religious person to take birth control. No one. People are not being forced to have abortions, or take the morning after pill, or fornicate or commit adultery or do any of the other sexual sins discussed or implied in the Bible. Nobody is infringing on First Amendment rights.

Instead, what's happening is that the government is telling religions they cannot reap the benefits of the government without following some of its rules. They are not forcing believers to violate their faith, they are saying that healthcare providers must provide certain levels of care to all people. Those people have the choice of whether they accept that care.

It's the choice that's the problem. Conservatives love to claim they want government out of their lives, but in reality what they really want is for government to stop guaranteeing other people rights that they would prefer to limit. See, abortion doesn't impact other people. It impacts the woman having the abortion and the child whose life is ended before it's begun. There is no impact on anyone else. Yet, other people would prefer to make that choice illegal for a woman because they don't agree with it, even as they get upset that the government would make it illegal for them to do the things they want to do. Blatant hypocrisy.

Too many religious people are afraid to give their converts choice. They want to take on a role that even God has rejected. God does not force us to make certain choices. There are options and there are consequences. We may not like the options and we may not agree with the consequences, but ultimately we have the freedom to make whatever choices we want to make. These social conservatives don't want that for people whose beliefs don't align with their tenets, and that bothers me deeply. The sort of hypocrisy that allows you to be comfortable with denying other people freedoms you yourself demand is the sort of hypocrisy that allows people to justify terrible atrocities.

That is what scares me about many conservatives. They can justify things that are not justifiable. They are willing to set aside their beliefs when those beliefs become too inconvenient. That spells trouble. Serious trouble.



Share

Important stuff

Hal Rounds, the Fayette County attorney and spokesman for the group, said during a recent news conference that there has been "an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.""The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn't existed, to everybody -- not all equally instantly -- and it was their progress that we need to look at," Rounds said, according to The Commercial Appeal.

 Excuse me while I barf. Hurl. Upchuck. Blow chunks.

That's all I can think about doing after reading that story on Huffington Post. We should all focus on how great the founding fathers were, not the fact that they were just fine with treating some people like property while others got rights.

As if that was really any different from a monarchy. Trust me, to the black folks being beaten and raped, it sure wasn't.

It's funny what certain types of white folks consider the "important stuff". Cherry trees and lighting = important. Human bondage = not so important..

At this point any black person who aligns themselves with the Tea Party  movement is a race traitor. Period.


Share

The Line is There

At a certain point, it just becomes overkill.

By "it" I mean everything. there is nothing on this planet that cannot be done to excess. Sex, drugs, violence or love, it doesn't matter. There comes a point when the law of diminishing returns sets in. The problem is getting folks to recognize that point.

It would seem that our Republican primary candidates don't understand that logic.

Well, maybe not all of them. Uncle Mitt has been involved in political campaigns for decades so he understands clearly that he only needs to prime the racism pumpa few times before it will turn into a gusher all on its on. But people like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and the now departed Rick Perry, seemed to have missed that memo. It's almost like they believe there is some sort of competition to see who can come up with the most outrageously racist comments everyday and they are determined to be that guy.

Overkill.

I don't know if these guys really believe the things they say about poverty or minorities, but I know they aren't backing away from them. They have staked claims on the vast plain of anti-political correctness, and they are desperately trying to erect a homestead. Even before Newt derided food stamps and Santorum said what many white people think about welfare, you had Bachmann, Perry and Cain leading the charge. There is power in appealing to those dirty little stereotypes people hold within their hearts, and it is the incredibly moral presidential candidate who turns down easily accessible power.

But, how many obviously racist comments can someone make before they stop being a viable presidential candidate? That depends largely on where collective opinion stands on what qualifies as racism. Gingrich and Santorum are banking on the fact that racism has been confined to such a small box in recent years that they can pretty much say anything and escape serious consequences. Hell, given the general tone people use to discuss the president and his family, that's a pretty safe bet.

Yet I believe that there is a line and both of them are dangerously close to crossing it completely with the majority of Americans. While Americans allow many forms of discrimination to exist unchallenged, they don't like to think of themselves or the people they like as racist. And while many comments that are racist to me are not considered racist by white people, stuff about food stamps and baby mamas generally gets the racist stamp. That's particularly true when those comments are coming from a party already branded as racist by non-members.

So I'm curious to see how this all works out for Newt and Rick. Will they be rewarded for their race to appeal to the bottom, or will it backfire on them? The outcome could very well decide how campaigns are run in the future.



Share