What's all the fuss about Americans not following religious doctrine? Seriously, we all know that none of us dance and drink as passionately as Baptists. Few are as happy with the invention of the Pill as Catholics. Many seem grateful that Jesus' plea to help the poor is taken no more seriously than an Ogden Nash poem.
Oh, I have no doubt that Catholic Church leaders are quite frustrated that their flock no longer does what they are ordered to do by the self-regarding, closer-to-god Church hierarchy. And, it's probably true that Mormons are, as these things go, a little more obedient to doctrine, right down to their underwear, than members of most other faiths. Credit where credit is due.
Lurking behind the church/state controversy over the morally righteous effort to make contraceptives available to American women is the certain truth that even the most devout Catholics ignore the Church's medieval doctrine on this one. The controversy was truly like arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin. There are no angels; there are no pins. Just pundits and panderers.
Denial may not be a river an Egypt, as the 12-steppers say, but it's broader than the Mississippi in America. If there's anything we do better than escaping religious doctrine, it's denying that we escape it.
Now, it must be admitted that many can get themselves into a snit when they discover that others have also sawed through the bars and run away across the fields. High-tailing it to freedom like the trio of convicts in O Brother Where Art Thou, they look over their shoulders and shout at the escapees behind them, "Get thee back to God's House, sinners!" Their indignation is born of two parents: seeing themselves unhappily mirrored in their doctrine-denying brethren makes their denial a little more difficult; and, they are worried about the lack of parking spaces near the bars, the dance halls, and the contraceptive-dispensing pharmacies.
Speaking of the Coen Brothers' O Brother, the scene where Delmar is saved by the preacher may be the most accurate portrayal of Americans and faith on film:
Delmar: Well, that's it, boys. I been redeemed. The preacher done washed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out. And heaven everlasting's my reward.
Everett: Delmar, what are you on about? We got bigger fish to fry.
Delmar: The preacher said all my sins is washed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo.
Everett: You said you was innocent of that.
Delmar: Well, I was lyin'. And the preacher said that that sin's been washed away, too. Neither God nor man's got nothin' on me now.
Secretly, we're all thankful for the First Amendment's separation of church and state. God forbid (pardon the reference) that the State should enforce church doctrines under penalty of the criminal law. If we think we have a prison crisis now...
So what's behind all the hooting and hollering over the Obama Administration's contraception initiative? Why is it that even some progressive pundits are arguing for more deference to the Catholic Bishops on an issue that's not even about religious freedom, but women's health? I think it's because they feel we're not showing enough deference to pretense. That the health of American women would be put at risk by such deference is kind of beside the point to them.
I don't mean to in any way mock religion. Many - most - of us draw deep and abiding values from the faith traditions we were raised in or discovered on our own. I think humans come with a wonderful ability to look for answers beyond what's immediately at hand, and religions can facilitate that and a give us a sense of community, too.
But I do mean to mock those who argue that we must sacrifice women's health on the altar of a religious doctrine no one in America takes seriously. On the other hand, Republicans who think this is a viable wedge issue might discover it's a wedge between themselves and the rest of America. I'm tempted to say, go for it.
Follow Glenn W. Smith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glennwsmith
Ellen Chesler: The Long History of the War Against Contraception
We have an understanding of the psychological needs of people that was not understood back then. So what is missing is a real dialog on the issue. If the Catholic bishops want to impose their thinking on the rest of the country, then they need to show that there is a serious reason to do so and not rely on we are "infallible."
Any ban on anything needs to show that the ban is for the common good. So bishops explain to us why birth control is so evil? Tell us why it is evil for married folks or unmarried couples? We are waiting!
So what disease or women's health issue is being treated with birth control pills as if pregnancy is a malady or disease. All these drugs and devices do is allow couples to have sex without consequences (disregarding the use of the pill for other conditions). So just don't use the false label "women's health" to justify getting this stuff for free.
No employer should be able to influence the medical decisions of employees. Period. (No pun intended.)
So you would agree with me that if an employer shouldn't get involved with these things, then they (Catholic hospitals, etc.) shouldn't be asked to provide these things either.
This issue is nothing more than a diversion from the real issues. Like churches paying taxes just like any other corporation and laws based on religious issues are the two big ones. Why do we allow them to have such an advantage over us?
When I think of why we allow laws and government to create chaos in our lives it brings to mind what Winston Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Few people look into the laws and political candidates thoroughly before they vote. It's sadly mostly a celebrity contest based on advertisement moneys etc.
In the case of the Catholic bishops and the Republican party, they were looking for a fight on this issue. And they got it. They also got a solution from the other side. So we leave them in the street ALL alone as they yell out to anyone who would listen, “But wait, I wanna fight! “
The crowd has left. They left because they see that the fight is not necessary.
Still yet from the distance, “But wait, I wanna fight! “
The birth control falls to an organization that routinely pays for it under just about every circumstance. If you lose sleep at night because the cost has been shifted to them, don’t wory. Companies in the healthcare provider racket routinely pay their CEO upwards to a hundred million a year or more. One guy retired a billionaire for a few years of work. They will have no problems finding the money.
Putting the priorities in line is another matter. President Obama has helped them with that as well. A new law now makes sure they have to spend a greater percentage of their income on “healthcare” of their customers and not ridiculous bonuses and golden parachutes for CEO’s. At least 80% of every health insurance dollar must be spent on health care.
Or perhaps, there are other orifices?
Does this mandate mean that the Catholic universities and hospitals cannot negotiate with an insurance company to specifically exclude birth control (or other reproductive services) in the company insurance plan?
Doesn't this mean that, in effect, the ability of the Catholic affiliated businesses to conduct their business as they see fit has been compromised? Doesn't this also mean that insurance companies are being forced to provide coverage (at their own expense) that they may find contrary to their business model?
I thought that nurses other employees of Catholic affiliated businesses might seek employment elsewhere if they found the available health insurance inadequate or substandard (for their needs). No business, as far as I know, is required to 1) provide any health insurance or 2) provide prescription drug coverage.
And I'm pretty sure that employees are free to reject the coverage offered by their employment and purchase their own insurance coverage. It's just that usually the insurance offered by employers is better than individuals can purchase, but not always and not necessarily.
Looks kind of like a giant morass to me.
So don't worry about their expenditure, it is a good investment for them and all of us.
I deal with quite a few insurance companies, and it is sometimes maddening that they have different policies on handling different drugs or procedures. Some cover one medication in a class, others only generics, some are more generous. Given that there are different brands of birth control, some of which probably cost more than others, how much freedom does the insurance company have to steer the doctor/nurse practitioner/patient to one form of birth control instead of another?
They have been robbing us blind for 30 years. In this case though monthly contraceptives cost considerably less than care for a child born with a congenital disorder. Or normal care of a healthy child for that matter. There is also the social cost to society fro mothers who can not afford to care for their children economically.
I can sympathize with those who say that the federal government has overstepped its authority in many areas, but because I generally agree with what's being done I haven't objected.
I'm just not sure that I'm on the right side of the argument. I won't have a leg to stand on if the government starts doing something similar (following this precedent for example) that I oppose.
is a woman only considered healthy when she's not pregnant? I used to think being barren was abnormal according to this article one would think preventing pregnancy is as important as preventing tuberculosis...
Bring on the transfats, sweets and freedom to ride with hair blowing in the breeze.
Give me a 4th of July with sparklers and fireworks, b-b-q's with chicken AND the crispy skin!
Give me ALL the freedoms we had as children, and none the worse for it, healthy AND happy,. (and quite possibly more so than children of today, who are overcoached, and scheduled, micro-monitored and downright deprived of so many of life's simple pleasures)
ignorance of the history is no excuse.
When they become employers, different laws apply to them.
You know what, just turn in your tax breaks.
Its exhausting explaining this over and over.
No wonder u'll listen to Fox.
It takes repeating over and over to get thru.