freedom, religion, and freedom of religion
Obama's re-election campaign should really send Rush Limbaugh a thank-you note and a 5 percent commission. The bottom line is that, being good at politics, which has less to do with reality than with perception, they parlayed the whole incident into an effective motivator for a notoriously unmotivated bunch of voters.
And, no matter what you think about the actual issue, you have to say that Limbaugh's remarks were ill-considered. I truly believe he didn't mean them the way they were eventually interpreted, but nonetheless it's been obvious for years that he has a mean streak. It's part of why so many listen to him.
But let's not get distracted from the actual issue, which probably isn't going to go away: can the government force religious institutions (hospitals, universities) to pay for services that go against their beliefs? There's a lot to say on both sides of the issue. I think I could be very persuasive in defending either position. But as the conversation continues over the next while, and as people claim that this isn't really about contraception or women's health as much as it is about religious liberty, you might keep in mind that this is indeed about religious liberty, but it's about religious liberty concerning contraception and women's health — as opposed to, for instance, war.
Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the United States have used contraceptive methods banned by the church; only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning. A far higher number than that are opposed, for religious reasons, to warfare. Along with conscientious-objector Catholics, and Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses, you can also add the millions of people who would allow for an active defense of our country's borders but, in the tradition of St. Magnus, are categorically against the actions we take, with dispiriting regularity, as the world's policeman.
And yet these people's taxes, and many billions more, paid for our folly in Iraq.
And, no matter what you think about the actual issue, you have to say that Limbaugh's remarks were ill-considered. I truly believe he didn't mean them the way they were eventually interpreted, but nonetheless it's been obvious for years that he has a mean streak. It's part of why so many listen to him.
But let's not get distracted from the actual issue, which probably isn't going to go away: can the government force religious institutions (hospitals, universities) to pay for services that go against their beliefs? There's a lot to say on both sides of the issue. I think I could be very persuasive in defending either position. But as the conversation continues over the next while, and as people claim that this isn't really about contraception or women's health as much as it is about religious liberty, you might keep in mind that this is indeed about religious liberty, but it's about religious liberty concerning contraception and women's health — as opposed to, for instance, war.
Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the United States have used contraceptive methods banned by the church; only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning. A far higher number than that are opposed, for religious reasons, to warfare. Along with conscientious-objector Catholics, and Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses, you can also add the millions of people who would allow for an active defense of our country's borders but, in the tradition of St. Magnus, are categorically against the actions we take, with dispiriting regularity, as the world's policeman.
And yet these people's taxes, and many billions more, paid for our folly in Iraq.
Comments