Broadening the Contraception Debate Through Lies

The contraception debate, which ensued after President Obama had his Administration press a decision demanding that Catholic owned and/or run institutions such as Hospital, Schools and other institutions where non-Catholics were employed would be required by the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Obama Care) to offer free contraception services as part of insurance coverage for their employees, has become a pressing issue where the arguments have been blurred and muddled with lies. The debate has been expanded to imply that the Catholic Church is fighting not simply to hold the line on their faith which does not allow for them to offer such coverage, but is dead-set to deny women’s right to choose and deny women to decide on decisions concerning their own bodies. This has expanded the debate to, by slanted implication, to include abortion as part of the debate which was not part of the original debate. The core of the debate is whether or not the Federal Government can force the Catholic Church, and other similarly aligned religious institutions, to provide free contraceptive health coverage despite their religious canon making such a sin. So, what exactly are the lies being used to distort this debate?

 

The largest exaggeration in this debate is that the Catholic Church is denying women of their right to use birth control. This is not the position of the Catholic Church as they simply hold that they advise Catholic women not to sin and that contraception is defined by the Catholic Church as a sin. They are not refusing to allow women from using contraceptives any more than they are refusing to allow any Catholic from breaking any other laws of the Church. The Catholic Church position is that they should not be forced to pay for or provide the means of committing sins as part of their offering services under Church employment. The Church looks upon their hospitals and schools as doing G-d’s work and a blessing performed by the Church through these institutions and in the desire to serve, offer all services to the entire public. The Catholic Church believes this is an essential part of their outreach and exemplifying the meaning of service under their beliefs. These institutions are as much a form of holy enterprise similar as the Churches themselves and seen as being similar in holiness and under the same laws and canon of the Church. It is this consideration which is the reasoning behind why the Catholic Church holds these institutions cannot be forced to provide the means of sin under the protection in the First Amendment’s guarantees against “impeding the free exercise of religion.”

 

But, what will be the further expansions which will logically proceed from this case? The most immediate expansion will be to every other religious institution being forced initially to provide these same full and free contraceptive services under their health coverage even if doing such violates their religious laws and beliefs. This will affect many Jewish institutions just as it does the Catholic Church as Judaism has similar opinions when it comes to many of these very same issues. The Protestant and Mormon religious institutions are also in this same ship receiving broadside attacks from President Obama and the Departments of Health and eventually Justice. Once this foothold has been established, which further guarantees promised by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will be negated through Federal Government edicts and regulations and other forms of coercion. Allowing this to stand can and will serve as the crowbar with which all our protected rights will become vulnerable to government aggression.

 

There is one other way of perceiving this debate which is becoming more appropriate and will define some of the underlying attack on many of our rights and freedoms. Ihis demand is really an attempt to erase the Judeo-Christian ethos of our society and replace it with an alternative religious ethos of Secular Humanism. When liberals scoff at classifying Secular Humanism being a religion, they deny it having such a classification, as Secular Humanism lacks a deity and thus cannot be a religion. By this argument Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religious philosophies which do not have a deity would no longer be considered religions. This would deny these religious institutions Constitutional protections under the First Amendment if part of the requirement for a religion is the belief in a deity. Perhaps we should go to the dictionary for the definition of “religion” where we find the following:

<I>1) A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2) A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3) The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.</I>

The definition I would put in words from this is a religion is any philosophy which has a set canon or set of laws which is believed to be valid and is followed by a group under a general sense of harmony and agreement. It sure sounds as if Secular Humanism fits the definition of a religion even if it is a recently formed religion and is still finalizing their canon. It is definitely a philosophy with an ardent and strict following who, unlike Judaism and most of Christianity, do not accept disagreement. Secular Humanists preach universal acceptance but only for those who accept and believe completely their dogmas. This latest attack, which has begun with the Catholic Church but will not end there, is simply another attempt to squelch and silence any person or institution which stands separate and possibly opposed to the Church of Secular Humanism. Do not be fooled by the claims of this being simply equal treatment under the law. This is anything but equal treatment under the law. This is use of the law as a battering-ram in an attempt to abolish any alternative to the new world religion of Secular Humanism. Universal contraception and full reproductive rights are simply part of the basic tenets canonized in the laws of Secular Humanism, and it is the decree of the new progressives that all shall worship at the Church of Secular Humanism.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

A Question for the Catholic Hierarchy

The idea that the Catholic Church in particular and religious people and institutions in general have come under direct assault by institutions within and outside governments by Secular Humanists throughout the public sphere is not an illusion but a truism. There have been those, including Glenn Beck, who have claimed that we all need to back the Catholic Church in this fight as this assault needs to be halted before it spreads on to the religious generally. I agree with the urgency to stand against threats to religious freedoms especially in the relatively few countries where it exists as a universal and guaranteed governing principle, as they are in truth a small minority. Where I stand in support of religious freedoms and will oppose any and all attempts to squelch the vitality and lifeblood of freedoms for religious observances and practices, I do have one simple question, or is it a request, to ask of the Catholic Church which I would like to announce and share on this space.

 

I will begin by offering thanks to the Catholic Church for their liberalization and reset of their relationship with the Jewish people. In an edict issued from the Vatican during the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 through 1965, the Catholic Church changed its definitions of relations and definition of Judaism from Replacement Theology to a friendlier acceptance along with forgiveness of what had been defined as cultural and actual guilt and sins for endless centuries. There have been claims of backsliding on this decision, especially when it comes to matters concerning Israel. My challenge to the Catholic Church is whether they will support Israel in their struggle for survival against the forces which aim to erase Judaism, not only from the face of the Earth, but from all of history as well. One would expect the Catholic Church to have stood with Israel and the Jewish People against those forces who have declared war against all religions other than their own which eventually will include the Catholic Church. These forces include the Islamists and the Secular Humanists which have formed an informal alliance, each intending to discard the other when they are no longer useful or necessary. One of these two is grossly underestimating the power of the other and it really does not matter for Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormon or other religious groups who will all have been marginalized or destroyed by that time. Will the Catholic Church recognize their need to ally with the Jewish People and with Israel or will they continue to be lukewarm fair-weather-friends picking and choosing when to smile and when to cast aspersions when the mood and subject suits their ends.

 

I fully understand the Catholic Church is in an unenviable position when it comes to the Islam-Israel conflict as many Catholics live within the Muslim World and the Catholic Church believes supporting Israel will cause great harms to befall their members living within the influences of Islam. I have a little piece of news for the Catholic Church, if the Muslims and Islamic forces which make up the radical Islamist forces win out, after they rid themselves of Israel the Catholics are very likely next on their target list. Feeding this alligator the Jews will serve only to whet its appetite for a continued feeding frenzy feasting upon the World’s Christians. If you have doubts about this, remember Spain from the period of the early 700s until 1492 when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella initiated the Spanish Inquisition after the war to liberate Spain from Islam to rid themselves of the Islamic Moorish remnants, oh, and of their Jewish population as well. Ask those who have studied the history of Vienna which was twice barely saved from the relentless spread of Islam. Search your modern World map and find Constantinople, a once great Christian city which is now named Istanbul and once held a grand monument called the Hagia Sophia which was transformed into a Mosque and all of the beautiful mosaics were plastered over as their subject was an insult to Allah and his Prophet. Do you really need prompting to remember your own early history of the last two times Islam turned to their goal of World conquest, the same style of conquest that many feel they have rediscovered with their third attempt is currently beginning.

 

We are on the cusp of two World movements which are both making their push for dominance. As mentioned earlier in this article, one is Islam and the other is State promoting and deifying Secular Humanism. Both of these forces are antithetical to Catholics just as much as they abhor Judaism. Both influences will spell the end for all Catholics just as they will Jews and those of many other religions as well. Plain and simple, putting this in the most basic terms I am able, both of these ideologies detest Catholicism almost equally as they do Judaism and the difference will not matter if in the end either one is allowed to become dominant. This is a war of civilizations and of ideologies. Trust when I say that Catholics and Jews have more in common with each other than with either of these destructive forces which are now ascendant. Christians and Jews will be stronger together than separate, let alone in opposition. So, I ask the Catholic Church, where do you stand in this critical time and day, with the Jews and Israel or on the sidelines or with those who wish the end of the Jews and Israel, and do not pretend there is a difference. Should Israel fall and half of the World’s Jews face extinction, rest assured the rest will wither and die the slow death of assimilation. Israel and the Jewish faith are one and the same for all intents and purposes. Choose carefully, our Father watches.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Absolute Truth on the Wall Separating Church and State

First, to repeat the simple truth which all too many people either honestly are unaware of or purposely deny is that nowhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the rest of the Amendments to the Constitution does the phrase, or even similar phrasing, “Separation between Church and State” actually exist. Here are the actual words of the First Amendment with the sections on religious freedom and restriction of government from religion denoted in italics,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ;or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

These concepts are divided into two components, the first being the “Establishment Clause” and the other being the “Exercise Clause”. So, what do each actually mean?

 

The “Establishment Clause” states that the Federal Government may not denote any religion to be the sanctioned preferred religion of the United States. It prevents there being declared an American Church, much like the feared Church of England or the Catholic Church served to subvert freedoms and placed those of other religions conceivably in peril of their life due to religious observance, depending which was ascendant during the period. The history of England displayed periods alternately where either the Catholics persecuted all non-Catholics or Protestants (Church of England) persecuting non-Protestants. The usual targets for Catholics were those who were leaders and congregants of the Church of England while targets for the Church of England was the same peoples who were Catholic. There were a few things which both groups agreed upon, namely that the Druids, Pagans, and Jews were nonbelievers under the persecutions of either church and thus always in fear of the State and the State Religion.

 

The “Exercise Clause” prevents the Federal government from restricting people from following and observing their religion and its dictates and customs as long as they do not harm or impinge upon anybody else and their freedoms of religion. This clause is the guarantor that the Federal Government is restricted from imposing restrictions upon religious observance nor makes demands which would force people to break with the tenets, customs and requirements of the observance of their religion. It is this section that is most often quoted when people refer to the United States providing freedom of religion.

 

The Establishment Clause is most quoted when people try to claim that it grants us freedom from religion when they attempt to claim that any public display of the Ten Commandments or a Nativity Scene on government property violates the First Amendment. Truth be told, the Establishment Clause actually forbids the exclusion of the Ten Commandments, Nativity Scenes, Chanukah Menorahs, and other such expressions of faith guaranteed by the Exercise Clause simply because forcing such from the public square is establishing an official state religion, namely Secular Humanism. Of course, when you define Secular Humanism as being a religion, the proponents of Secular Humanism cry foul and claim that Secular Humanism is actually the epitome of being the un-religion. So, who is correct?

 

Religion is defined in my dictionary as;

1) A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2) A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion.

3) The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

So, does Secular Humanism fit any of these definitions? I doubt there can be much disagreement that it fulfills definition 2 and 3 completely thus qualifying as a religion. But what about the first definition? Secular Humanism definitely is a set of beliefs concerning and defining the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Secular Humanism also definitively contains a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. One might even claim that it has a superhuman overriding entity which is behind all their truths, their beliefs which is called science, most often physics, astrophysics to be more specific. Their rituals are demonstrating in favor of a “woman’s right to choose”, recycling, alternate energy, and actions supporting any of the myriad of liberal doctrines. These also are the basic moral codes for the Secular Humanist. The only argument that takes a slight stretch is equating science as their superhuman agency or agencies, their deity. But would not having an actual deity actually preclude Secular Humanism from being a form of religion? What about Hinduism or Buddhism? Neither of these religions have a belief in a deity; they have the defining philosophy of the originator of their belief system. By the same definition, Secular Humanism has the same originators, namely Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, Galileo, Archimedes, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and Hawking along with numerous philosophers such as Hubbard and others.

 

Once we realize and get the courts to affirm that Secular Humanism is actually a religion, then we can proceed to prevent them from denuding our common areas of what the Secular Humanists currently denote are religious displays and therefore must be removed. With Secular Humanism recognized as the religion it is, removing the Ten Commandments, Nativity Scenes, Chanukah Menorahs and any other objects denoted as too religious for public inclusion, then we can also sue that displaying nothing during the many holiday seasons and the exclusion of the Ten Commandments replacing it with nothing is actually the observance of Secular Humanism. Perhaps we should begin to demand that Secular Humanism is no longer a reasonable reason for removal of community preferred displays as being the establishment of a State religion and thus forbidden by the Constitution of the United States. Maybe it’s time for a war against Secular Humanism and not make peace until the Secular Humanist followers agree to allow the display of other religious displays next to their religiously denuded spaces in front of city hall and elsewhere. Let them have their open space perhaps with a shrub or other display of Secular Humanism, whatever they might be, and we can have our beautiful displays of our love of our faiths.

 

Beyond the Cusp