Skip to main content

The War Against Religion (Christianity)

There has been clamor for quite some time, particularly since 1992 in light of Pat Buchanan’s “culture war” speech at the Republican National Convention, about there being a war against religion in this country or to be more specific, a war against Christianity. This has become extremely prevalent in recent days, as Catholic bishops, Republican members of Congress and others have adamantly denounced President Obama’s attempt to mandate birth control coverage for church-affiliated employees.

The Catholic church has long spoken out against the concept of birth control. In his 1968 letter, entitled Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI wrote the following about such matters:

Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”

The thought is that the sole purpose of sex is a means to procreate and when any birth control method is used, it prevents the procreation. Sex then becomes about pleasure, which is deemed wrong. This is why many Catholic bishops are upset about the mandate, because they claim it goes against their beliefs and the word of God. 

What I think many of these bishops and others like them are forgetting is the fact that birth control methods are often times used for non-contraceptive purposes. A study, based on U.S. government data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) and conducted by Rachel K. Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, found that 1.5 million women rely on birth control exclusively for non-contraceptive reasons, and 58% of users rely on them, at least in part, for non-contraceptive reasons. That means only 42% of women use birth control exclusively for pregnancy prevention. The study also showed that 31% of women take the pill to reduce cramps, 28% for menstrual regulation, 14% for acne treatment and 4% to treat endometriosis. It was also found that 762,000 women, whom have never engaged in intercourse, use the pill. 

What I find to be so laughable about the declarations that there is a war against religion (Christianity) in this country is the fact it seems that this “war” often times centers around issues such as gay marriage, abortion and contraception. I’m not exactly certain of when these three issues and perhaps a couple others became what the religion revolved itself around and for those whom may disagree with them on such matters are at war with the religion and discriminating against it. For the record, 78.4% of the U.S. population describes themselves as Christian. Close to four of every five people in this country are self-described Christians. Of the 535 members of Congress, 90.2% of them are self-described Christians, more than 9 of every 10. Looking at things from a common sense standpoint, why in the world would a government, whose religious make-up is over 90% Christian, representing a country that is over 78% Christian, start a war with Christianity and discriminate against it? I can’t say that makes much sense to me. On the other hand, Muslims represent just 0.6% of the country and of the 535 members of Congress, only two are self-described Muslims. In 2000, there were 28 hate-crimes against Muslims. That number increased to 481 in 2001 and has held steady on an annual basis since then. In light of the 9/11 attacks and the FBI’s investigation on matters, 1,200 (mostly Muslim) citizens were detained, due to “anonymous tips called by members of the public suspicious of Arab and Muslim neighbors who kept odd schedules.” Overall, thousands of Muslim-Americans were detained and deported, hundreds more arrested, yet only a few were prosecuted on what came to be non-violent charges. Radiation monitoring was conducted at hundreds of mosques from around the country. Seven U.S.-based Muslim charities were closed and six others were raided. In more recent years, there have been numerous protests of mosques being built in the country. These protests occurred in Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Manhattan, New York; Temecula, California and Sheboygan, Wisconsin, amongst other areas. The war Christians are facing is like a game of duck, duck, goose compared to what Muslims in this country have gone through.

Looking at things from a broader perspective, it appears painfully obvious that Catholic bishops, most Republican members of Congress and other like-minded individuals have completely blown out-of-proportion Obama’s contraception mandate and with it, the war against religion (Christianity). It’s my belief that when a group of people is treated as superior for an extended period of time and other groups are given equal rights, it makes them feel as if they’ve lost theirs. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Some of them like to clamor that these other groups are receiving “special treatment,” when it is they whom received that special treatment up to that point. When women and blacks were given the right to vote, was that an example of them being given special treatment? No. Just as white males were given the right previously, women and blacks were given an equal right to vote. This didn’t strip away white males’ right to vote. It gave others equality. There’s a big difference, one which seems to escape some. Gays seeking the right to marry aren’t asking for special treatment. They’re asking for equal rights as heterosexuals, whom are allowed to legally marry. It’s not as if along with the right to marry, gays are asking for a Lexus from the government as a wedding gift. That would be special treatment. Equal marriage rights are not. The Christian religion is not facing a war against it, discrimination on any front. In 2010, Catholic Charities’ affiliates received $2.9 billion from the government, 62% of its annual revenue. After taxes, that number stood at $2.9 billion. How so many others wish they could face such discrimination.









Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"