Thursday, May 14, 2015

War on religion

With little fanfare, the Obama administration provided new rules demanding all insurers give out free birth control.

this is, of course, a direct reply to the Catholics and others who don't want to pay for birth control, and early abortion medicines, but never mind. It won't get a lot of press, and if it does, it will spin it as this story does in the WATimes, meaning that the opposition will be in paragraph 14, if you bother to read that much since most of the first 13 paragraphs are the pro Obama spin (and this is a conservative paper).
the problem?

The contraceptive mandate has been controversial from the start, though most of the attention has gone to the marathon court battle between the administration and employers who have religious objections to contraceptives, and who say forcing them to pay for employees’ coverage violates their own rights. The Supreme Court last year ruled closely held corporations do not have to insure types of birth control that violate their moral beliefs, and the Obama administration is expected to update its rules soon. Read more: Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

this expands the coverage.

David Warren's long essay covers a parallel problem that occured when James 1 demanded all take a loyalty oath:

There was a great controversy between them, over the Oath of Allegiance (1606) that King James put before those of his subjects still Catholic, and which in good conscience many found impossible to take. Published in the backwash from the “Gunpowder Plot,” it appeared to offer English Catholics tolerance and safety, on the condition that they would recognize the Protestant King’s high authority, and abjure violence, insurrection, or tumult. To more modern eyes, this seems a real deal: “Let us live and let live. … Swear that you won’t try to overthrow me, and I swear that I won’t try to kill you.”But it was not so simple as post-modern eyes see. In the course of the seven affirmations demanded of his subjects, King James was laying down the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings (since mutated into the Divine Right of Elected Politicians). No Catholic can accept that; many dissenting Protestants were uncomfortable with it, too; and the controversy over this English Oath of Allegiance was joined across Europe, for many years

hmm...wasn't the overthrow of the king a couple years later over that part about Divine Rights? Indeed, further down the article, he points out that this was one of the points taken by America's founding fathers.

But the same argument is found in today's world, and not just in places like China where the gov't wants to control the church.

That a King, or other secular ruler, has an authority or legitimacy that is in some sense divinely sanctioned, Catholics would have to agree. This is affirmed even within Christ’s “give unto Caesar,” when properly understood. But it is affirmed, throughout Catholic teaching — ancient, mediaeval, and modern — with a very important qualification. When the State claims an authority even over conscience; and more particularly, when it claims the right to form that conscience in defiance of Holy Church; and even more particularly, when it establishes an alternative religion (whether that be “Anglican” as then or, as today, “Secular Humanist”) — it has lost its legitimacy, its right to be obeyed. For the demand now is no longer “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” rather, “give unto Caesar what is God’s.” This becomes a martyrdom issue.
 That the US gov't will prosecute people of faith for not providing medicines that are contraceptive is only the start, for anyone reading the fine print of the thinkers in charge know that the next step is refusing to give medicine to prolong the life of the old/handicapped/inconvenient if it costs too much while offering self immolation as the alternative....and it will require cooperation by physicians, nurses and pharmacists...

And the "gay marriage" debate, which is usually phrased as letting Heather's two mommies a piece of paper to affirm they are a real family, will be used  as a bludgeon to emphasize these nice people only want to be given their rights, which sounds fine for those who really don't care about the issue (and prefer to ignore what is going on in the trenches of the gay lifestyle. I mean, when articles complain gay marriage will discourage "flashy" open perversions, you don't have to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing).

But once that "right" is entrenched, churches and individuals who don't agree will be pressured and sued to go along with it.

Alas, this is not the full issue: the real issue is the idea that to make men and women equal, women have to be the same as men in the workplace...and soon that idea, with all it's implications, will  become the norm. Yet biology says there is a difference, and the new Gallileos will have to conform to the new inquisitions, whispering "but it does move biologically it's not true" will be ostracized from universities and places of authority.

yet making laws based on utopian ideas, whether it be socialism's new man, or the sharia loving mullahs, doesn't work in the long run, but their overthrow can be quite bloody.

Nor is Warren the only one who is prophecizing that this might indeed become a "martyrdom issue".

Many Catholic s are quoting the late Cardinal George in this

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."
(the NCR clarifies the quote by printing the entire column HERE. )

this subtle war against believers might be why all the papers are trumpeting in headlines about the fall in the numbers of Christians. Given that "atheism" is now en vogue, and given the fact that good Catholics have been discouraged from being Catholic by their own bishops and leaders,  I am surprised it's not worse.
 but as the link at Getreligionblog notes: yes, 20 percent are "none" but you missed something:

It's crucial for journalists to realize that there is more to the 20-plus percent crowd that's strongly affiliated with faith than the evangelicals. There are daily and weekly Mass Catholics, and Orthodox Jews, and conservative mainliners, and Eastern Orthodox Christians and others. The Mormons are over there, too. So we can't really call them the "creedals," even if that's with a small "c." There are, of course, people who would want to jump straight to calling them "bigots," and that would fit well in a headline, but I don't think most journalists are ready to go that far – at this point.
So journalists out there, especially copy editors: What would be a good, punchy, headline-friendly term for this other key group that keeps showing up in the Pew numbers?

No comments: