(and yes, the possessive of Jesus is Jesus', not Jesus's. Ask Lynne Truss.)
Why is it that even when I'm getting out of the shower and preparing myself for the day that I still can't turn off my mind?
Today's ruminations while brushing my sopping-wet hair: did Jesus mean to send the message that all Christians should be white, middle-class parents who are faithful consumers flying American flags while mommy is cooking and daddy is out earning a respectable living so that his male children will learn from his example and his daughters will learn why it's true that males are superior to females because, well, they have penises?
Okay, maybe I fell into the hyperbolic temptation. It's sometimes easy to confuse around 33 A.D. with 2012.
But seriously. I can't help but be mesmerized by Santorum's rhetoric in this presidential campaign season.
I think if we look in more detail at Jesus' words, by imploring us to embrace the prostitute and tax collector, by seeing Him when we see them, I think he's rather suggesting that there will ALWAYS be those who differ from "us." And he didn't necessarily mean that everyone needed to become clones or be shunned. Show love and acceptance while preaching that message. Don't judge just because, pardon the cliche, you don't see cookie-cutter copies.
Of course this also implies that I shouldn't be judging them either. It cuts both ways, which is why Jesus was 1) such a genius at rhetoric, and 2) so darn difficult to follow!
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Controlling births
What an issue.
In America, we agree that our government does not control our lives. We believe in privacy, the right to practice whatever religion we want, the right to choose the kind of education we want. It really isn't that complicated. But people make it so.
Should employers be able to limit the types of healthcare they offer to employees if that care conflicts with their religious views? Everyone should be answering no.
What if my employer, a public school district, decided it didn't believe in birth control and so I had to start paying out-of-pocket for prescription birth control? Well, wouldn't that be my employer forcing me to live by their own personal beliefs? And we don't believe in doing that here in America.
It is one thing for an employer not to believe in birth control. But when we say they legally don't have to offer insurance to cover some of those services, we have crossed a huge line. And those who want to restrict this sort of access think they are PROTECTING the rights to freedom of religion! It's so twisted and obvious.
Rick Santorum actually says things out loud that suggest the wide availability of birth control has had negative moral and social impacts on this country (NYTimes, Romney Sets Off Furor on Contraception Bill, Mar 1, 2012). Um, what? Sure, a woman can have sex now and has greatly reduced her chances of having an unplanned pregnancy. Is she a slut, then? Sorry Santorum, but you can't control the morals of each woman in America. That was called the Puritan culture, and it sort of died out. For a reason. Because we decided we didn't want to live under a theocracy. If he does, fine, but he better not bring me in with him. That's called freedom.
What is even more ironic is that contraception prevents abortions, something anyone with a pulse knows that Santorum doesn't support. It also prevents unplanned pregnancies, sometimes reducing the number of children in orphanages, foster homes, etc. Do we want to live in a modern society where everyone has twenty children because of a lack of birth control? I don't think he's thought this through in a logical way, which isn't a shock.
We cannot force our own religious beliefs onto other people. Just because you think it's the right course of life doesn't mean you can force other people to live the same way. We should be very frightened by thinking like this, particularly from a man who wants to be the President of the United States. Don't we have better problems to worry about? Like how he got this far in the presidential race to begin with?
In America, we agree that our government does not control our lives. We believe in privacy, the right to practice whatever religion we want, the right to choose the kind of education we want. It really isn't that complicated. But people make it so.
Should employers be able to limit the types of healthcare they offer to employees if that care conflicts with their religious views? Everyone should be answering no.
What if my employer, a public school district, decided it didn't believe in birth control and so I had to start paying out-of-pocket for prescription birth control? Well, wouldn't that be my employer forcing me to live by their own personal beliefs? And we don't believe in doing that here in America.
It is one thing for an employer not to believe in birth control. But when we say they legally don't have to offer insurance to cover some of those services, we have crossed a huge line. And those who want to restrict this sort of access think they are PROTECTING the rights to freedom of religion! It's so twisted and obvious.
Rick Santorum actually says things out loud that suggest the wide availability of birth control has had negative moral and social impacts on this country (NYTimes, Romney Sets Off Furor on Contraception Bill, Mar 1, 2012). Um, what? Sure, a woman can have sex now and has greatly reduced her chances of having an unplanned pregnancy. Is she a slut, then? Sorry Santorum, but you can't control the morals of each woman in America. That was called the Puritan culture, and it sort of died out. For a reason. Because we decided we didn't want to live under a theocracy. If he does, fine, but he better not bring me in with him. That's called freedom.
What is even more ironic is that contraception prevents abortions, something anyone with a pulse knows that Santorum doesn't support. It also prevents unplanned pregnancies, sometimes reducing the number of children in orphanages, foster homes, etc. Do we want to live in a modern society where everyone has twenty children because of a lack of birth control? I don't think he's thought this through in a logical way, which isn't a shock.
We cannot force our own religious beliefs onto other people. Just because you think it's the right course of life doesn't mean you can force other people to live the same way. We should be very frightened by thinking like this, particularly from a man who wants to be the President of the United States. Don't we have better problems to worry about? Like how he got this far in the presidential race to begin with?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)