Robert,
Thanks and good idea. For us men the female perspective is always to be considered, or, as Winston Churchill put it “Behind every great man is an even greater woman!” I will also add that I will support PPHF’s 62% of services to women the day the stop practicing the other 28% of their immoral “services.” As for failed NFP you don’t understand what it is. Implied in your comment is that it is just another form of birth control which it is not. Natural Family Planning does not involve artificial barriers like condoms or IUD’s. Nor does it inject dangerous chemicals into a woman’s body. NFP requires only that a woman fully recognize her body’s biological function. It works with nature and not against it as artificial BC does therefore when NFP “fails” it treats the new life as a child and not as a disease to be cured. In fact the it I refer to here is actually two persons with a mind that can love so NFP is not a technological invention but a man and woman in relationship. NFP does not pit a man against a woman as birth control advocates like Planned Parenthood do. Nor does NFP teach children are undesirable even when an effort to space them is made. Furthermore NFP cannot fail because it uses human will to avoid procreation… in english this means the husband and wife agree to NOT have sexual intercourse (if a woman gets pregnant then she has given up use of NFP by definition). They exercise their wills rather than set them aside to depend on drugs or mechanisms. In order to use their wills they both must use have an intellect and exercise it thus they are acting as human beings rather than setting aside reason (intellect) and love (will) for the sake of pleasure! Simply put NFP does not demonize children, women or men but rather treats them all the same, as persons deserving of dignity that cannot be violated by using the other for a selfish end as all means of artificial BC inherently do. Again NFP is 100% moral, 100% safe and natural, and 100% effective. Birth control methods all fail, are immoral for the reasons I’ve laid out more than once here, and are invasive to the woman’s body especially when using chemicals (and unnatural to the man’s body when using a condom).

Nicole,
First off, let’s drop the radical feminist rhetoric concerning “unexpected” and “unwanted”… who in their right mind thinks that children are not the natural consequence of the sexual act! The very reason contraception is pushed in our society is so that women will be free of the burden of having children when they commit the sexual act. If you want to place blame on men do so correctly by insisting they should take part in the new life they helped bring into this world rather than placing the full burden on the women they impregnate. Prior to contraceptive technology women were faced with the burden of feeding and educating the child alone. The only change with technological intervention is that a woman can now end that burden by putting her child to death. The problem is there is a price to be paid conscience wise so modern women have given into radical feminist rhetoric that artificial means to prevent conception will avoid abortions only to find out the opposite is true… we have more abortions because we have more men and women with the mentality that children can be “unwanted.” Contraceptives we have today are a compromise from the original inception in that they have been reduced in potency due to the harm the drugs did to women while ingesting them is such high doses. The result is that modern contraceptives are “safer” in that they don’t harm a woman who takes them as much as prior, but this at the price of failing to prevent all conceptions from occuring. The result is the abortifacient quality of the drug where users have “mini-abortions” even without their knowledge (because the drug alters the euterin lining making it hostile to implantion). There are in addition those cases where the fetal child grows to the point of being noticed and hence abortion is the “last resort” alternative to the “unexpected/unwanted” child.

I come back to the reality that the human sexual act has as it’s primary purpose to generate new human life and so if a man or woman does not want children then don’t engage in sex! The equation of life is simple. Why would one expect a car not to move once the engine is started and the transmission is put in gear? Likewise why would a child be “unexpected” when a man and woman engage in a sexual act? This sad state of affairs in our society today is brought on by women who have given up their desire to live normally, according to their nature, and expect that the sexual act will do what it does. Women (and men) have thus been sold a bill of goods. They’ve been promised sexual pleasure without consequence if they use artificial BC but to do so requires they believe they are less human than they are. It’s for a woman to believe pleasure is to be desired over children (as you accuse me of). I say have all the sexual pleasure you want in the proper context of a loving dedicated monogamous lifelong relationship. I say if a man will not support you and your children dump him and find one who will! I say in the end if one lives a life of sexual pleasure alone with the burden of having any children they will regret it as they near death but cannot go back. I say pleasure is fleeting but relationships with other persons, especially spouse and children is not! We carry relationships into the next life if we carry anything at all.

Julie,
You like Robert and Nicole set up a straw man only to knock it down because I have not said in any of my replies on this thread that pleasure is for men alone, women are machines for our pleasure. I’ve also made it plain that procreation and pleasure come together. I’ve made it clear that this is natural and to be desired and that it is the anti-life view of the radical feminists that pits new life against sexual pleasure. It is Playboy and Hustler that separates the two that should never be and seeks only after pleasure. For years women stood against these groups that exploited them for their body (and pleasure) but now women have not only bought into the pornographic anti-child anti-life mindset of these men (and women if you consider those like Margaret Sanger of PPHF) but go out of their way to participate. One only has to look at how many women now expose themselves in pornography (not just of Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt but of their own private production called amature porn) to see they have given themselves over to that which the original feminists fought against. Nevertheless it has been the prolife movement as well as the Christian Church that undergirds it that has been demonized as against women. That same Church has always said women are not to be used or exploited by men like Hefner and Flynt or women like Sanger and Molly Yard, all who support abortion, contraception, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution to name but a few, but this seems to overlooked as you blame men overall.

As for the “rhythm method” or the “count and pray” method” they have no bearing on NFP. These are foreign to Natural Family Planning’s method even though the former was an early attempt at finding a way to approach family planning naturally. If any of you actually looked into the real thing you’d realize all you are doing here is repeating rhetoric that our anti-life anti-woman anti-child anti-white male culture has taught you. If you want to argue honestly with me you at least need to understand my side in a way that I could agree that you do understand it. Until then you merely knock down not what I believe but what a culture bent on it’s own destruction insists you to believe. The sad thing is what you don’t know and understand does hurt you! By the way this idea that "fertilization window is a moveable feast " is true for the “rhythm method” as has been stated precisely because that METHOD did not work well. The method we have now involves using “basal body temperature, her cervical mucus, and her cervical position” (Wikipedia) as well as charting as indicators that are scientifically based, and so as you degrade NFP you degrade science. “NFP limits sexual intercourse to naturally infertile periods; portions of the menstrual cycle, during pregnancy, and after menopause.” (Wikipedia) Even if one attributes the degree of unknown to be what you three seem to say that still leaves 15 days of “fun and pleasure” where a woman cannot be impregnated and without dangerous estrogen based drug coctails. “NFP alters neither the fertility of the woman nor the fecundity of a particular sex act… NFP can be used to both avoid or achieve pregnancy.” (Wikipedia) A woman knows herself better as an effect of NFP and furthermore, a man knows her better because NFP by definition involves him in the process. Artificial means are meant to free men of any bother with the woman and as I said before still leave women with a whole host of undesirable side effects that are a sign of the brokeness of the contraceptive mentality. Ratjaws@aol.com

Alex,
First off, I must apologize for not being clear enough in what I’ve said so that you misunderstand me. I will try to alleviate this in my subsequent comments. Second, you claim what I’ve said is “unprovable” and if this is true then all that you’ve said prior falls into that category too. This is because you say my argument “is not open to verification,” and by this you imply empirical proofs, that is validiation by experience. If I cannot do this then surely it holds true for you and every other human person bound by this same reality we all experience. If so then where are we? We’ve reached an impasse we cannot breach… one that involves the very act of communication I speak of, inherent in my argument against all forms of artificial BC. What also follows from this is that you claim I pass a judgment as if I am determining who will go to heaven and who will not. Of course I am making a judgment, to deny this I’d be disingenuous, but I am not making ultimate judgments. On the contrary, the kind I am making are ordered toward particular acts. I am saying these acts are disordered (contraceptive acts) according to the nature of what it means to be a person. In fact I’m not even looking at you or your husband or anyone else when I make these judgments because they are principled points (how could I since this is the first I’ve met you?), that is they general and overarching judgments about particular kinds of acts we can make being human as we are.

The point in all of this is that if you can tell me my view is wrong, null and void simply by discounting my ability to validate experiencial knowledge of the real world, then you too must fall under this same criteria and thus are also incapable of such knowledge. The fact remains this is not true for you… nor is it for me. We are both capable of experiencing the “fruit’s” of our actions and as such can judge them. We can also judge another person’s acts. Note here I do not necessarily mean judgment of their intentions, but rather that we can determine whether each act of another person conforms itself to the reality of this world we live in. We can do so by seeing each act’s consequences, and in fact, we are capable of predicting those consequences prior to the acts precisely because this universe has an order to it that does not change even though we might imagine it so. This is where we get our scientific laws and it is also why I can make these kinds of judgments that fall into the category of Natural Law.

Natural Law is not strictly about ultimate judgment, about where one goes in the next life, but is, as I said above, about consciousness of our acts and those of others. It is true that these acts in moral theology do pertain to ultimate judgment but we can speak of them prior to and out of context of the kind you claim I arrogantly make here. In simple terms Natural Law is the study of conscience and how we can even make judgments, and what they mean. I add that if we do not make judgments every moment of every day we not only attempt to live a dangerous life, but we are trying to avoid being human. Our very nature is to do such a thing… we seek to know and to make judgments, then act accordingly. This is what it means to be human. We act according to our judgments, hopefully our right judgments. As a matter of fact you must make a judgment to know I am judging. So if you try to convict me of some wrong for making judgments in general (apart from ultimate judgments) then you in turn make yourself a hippocrate who is not following the same standard you hold others too.

This said I come back to the topic of whether artificial BC is natural? It is not! That has been my point in all of what I’ve said. I have also stated that Natural Family Planning is natural as it’s name in fact implies. NFP is not a method like birth control technology is, rather it is simply a recognition of how a man and woman interact at the level of their biological nature. Undergirding this nature is the spiritual aspect in that it is the source of that very nature. So what we “do with our bodies” is done according to what we know… that is to how we correctly or incorrectly perceive nature. We must make judgments in order to know our natures as male and female and then act according to this knowledge. If we are right we have one consequence, if we are wrong we face another. So the point is not that you and your husband cannot have correct knowledge of when conception will occur if you are using artificial BC, rather that you did not get this knowledge from it’s use. As a woman introducing a chemical into your body (or using a device like an IUD or your husband using a condom) to prevent it from doing what it does naturally does not eradicate your understanding that if this chemical were not in your body it would be possible for you to conceive new life. On the contrary you either already knew this before use of that chemical or you learned it after and in spite of using it. You learned it from knowing your nature and that of your husband’s, the biological as well as the spiritual aspects. In fact this independence of knowledge and use of BC is proven by the fact that whenever you desire to have children you must get off of the pill in order to conceive since it’s nature is to interfere with the nature of the procreative act. If there were somehow a mysterious linkage between BC and knowledge of fertility, as you implicate, then not using it would make a couple ignorant. Yet this is certainly not the experienced case and as such makes my point. A couple who uses artificial means to some degree inhibits their knowledge of fertility (not eradicate). They must because the very act of interfering with the procreative act obscures it’s presence… by definition! On the other hand when a couple uses NFP they avoid artificial barriers, by definition, and as a result are closer to the act itself. Said another way they are free to experience what contraceptives avert.

Next you imply that I say those who use artificial BC are not in a “wonderful, loving, and strong marriage.” I do not! What I am saying is that if you are in this kind of relationship it is DESPITE your use of birth control methods. If you love your spouse you do so because you will too, not because you induce a chemical into your system that prevents conception. Love is primarily an act of our will and this is why I come down so hard on any means that interferes with the procreative act. Love is and must always be directed toward the good of the other person (and one can make the case it is also directed toward our own good) and as such artificial BC prevents a great good (new human life). Contraception is meant to thwart the procreative act from achieving it’s end and in doing so it is therefore an evil because conceiving new human life is not an evil. It can never be! Yet just look closely at the terminology used to describe why one should want to use birth control… that is “to prevent unwanted children.” What is not desired is so because it is seen as somehow being not good; as interfering with some thing else that is considered good. So all BC puts human life lower on the scale of goods than it should be. In fact all that we can do and enjoy as persons should be subservient to our personhood itself and whenever we turn this around, for whatever reason, we make some other lesser good such as a home, a car, education, a career or vacation, or whatever other material thing (or achievement) one can think of greater than the person these things are for. Things are meant to serve persons and not the other way around.

So while you may mistakenly think your use of contraceptives has brought you and your husband closer together the reality is it has not. It has hindered your communion so-to-speak. Note here the Latin: cum-, with + municare, union, or “union with;” to communicate oneself is to unite with and the sexual act is by it’s nature a communication of one person to another. It must because it is a barrier between him and you. In fact it pits children against the two of you and the things (good things) you might desire in that moment. It’s an attempt to put lesser goods ahead of the greater good of human life and love. That the two of you have progressed in your love for each other I do not dispute, but you have done so, again, despite your use of contraceptives. Nor would I deny your love for your children but I will say you have been limiting your love. The greatest good you can give your husband or children is other kids or siblings. With the barrier artificial BC puts physically between you and your husband comes a barrier between you and your children… as well as those you would have had had you not used it. And this barrier has consequences in that it is deliberate on your part. Your existing children have a sense of this and this same mentality that desires to prevent children, like them, in you both (because they are “unwanted”) manifests itself in your children when they come of child bearing age. They too must struggle with the effects of “not wanting” children, or any more children (remaining open), all of which is not natural (it’s to not love or to not desire children). To desire relationships is natural. To want more children is natural. To be and remain open to them with every procreative act is to be and remain perfectly natural. It is the essence of to love. To use contraceptives of any form is to be unnatural… it is to act against your nature to “be fruitful and multiply” to plagerize a phrase from the bible, it is to deny love and to refuse to love… in those particular acts.

What’s left if one chooses to use artificial BC? It is to put a wall up at those times during those acts leaving only the pleasure that results from the act itself. It’s to strip away the greater good… the sexual act itself, leaving the lesser… the pleasure. It’s like having the artificial taste of ice cream in a pill form while avoiding actually having an ice cream cone. When one strips away all the rhetoric of the anti-life movement one sees the primary reason for birth control is to indulge in one of the greatest human pleasures without the primary reason for that pleasure. To have children, to be open to them implies this act that gives pleasure but to turn this around by introducing a barrier that seeks to prevent conception is to be left with the pleasurable taste of food without the food. And to go without food even though one can taste it at ever meal is to kill oneself. Likewise for the human sexual act… to go without generating new human life is to enjoy the pleasure that comes from the act of sex but to kill the human race since one more person is being denied from coming into existence. If this is love it’s a lesser love. Thus, as I stated before we are loving the lesser good of sexual pleasure and avoiding the greater good of human life and it is a disorder because the greater we should desire above the lesser, especially knowing the greater good carries with it the lesser good.

So Alex, you should see now that what you perceive in me as “arrogance” is simply my recognition of reality as it is. You don’t fight against me… you fight against reality itself. You need not accept it but such denial does not change the reality. If you accept it you gain all that comes with it… including new life; that by the way, is all you can take to the next life with you. If you reject it then your husband and you will leave this life being less than you could have been. Less loving (not not loving), in less relationships, with more temporal pleasure that fades prior to the next life. Calling me names changes none of this that I lay out to you, which by the way, has been right in front of you all the time. I’m not telling you anything you cannot learn and experience for yourself. I’m just stating the obvious or what should be if the rhetoric in our culture were not so against human nature itself.

Anyhow thanks for your thought as many points were good and true. Ratjaws@aol.com

Robert,
I appreciate your input on this subject and even though I am not an expert in the biological sciences I do believe the period a woman can become pregnant is a much smaller window than you indicate. Nevertheless, my point is that Natural Family Planning (NFP) provides an intimate understanding of a female’s biology on the part of both wife and husband. The two cooperate with each other in determining when to have children rather than depending upon a pill that alters the woman’s biological makeup with side effects that are neither wanted, nor necessary, and often times can be seriously dangerous. A most important question comes from this asking why do we as a culture steeped in the rhetoric of natural cures push an artificial interference when it comes to our sexual biological makeup?

Second, even if I accept your proposition that a woman’s fertile period extends a week to 10 days, this still means for two-thirds of a month she is not fertile. Thus NFP uses this knowledge not to avoid sexual intimacy, or interfere with the natural act itself, as do abortifacient drugs, but to free a man and woman to engage in their martial duty to each other as often as they desire within its constraints and this, even if they desire to avoid children at the moment. This knowedge as I have said has the added advantage of helping a couple to attain pregnancy knowing when pregnancy occurs and this contrasts with the ignorance of the BC method’s mindset.

NFP while being 100% moral (contrary to BC pills which are intrinsically evil because it seeks to change the purpose of human sexuality from it’s normal unitive/procreative meaning to sexual pleasure alone) is also 100% safe. That the introduction of chemicals into a woman’s system is dangerous is plainly known by reading the lengthy disclaimer that comes with BC pills provided by the manufacturer. In fact an awareness of the danger of blood clots has recently become publically discussed in relation to the pill (something like 20% to 30% greater likelihood with chemical contraceptive use). Not to mention that NFP when properly understood and used becomes 99.9% effective compared to the pill’s lesser effectiveness (your figure is an exaggeration).

This latter point comes not withstanding the fact that BC pills do nothing to contribute to the union of husband and wife, instead work contrary to a love that solidifies the two even in hard times. Neither can the pill change our horrific cultural attitude that children are “unwanted” interruptions to life as NFP does. The latter in supporting love between a man and woman also encourages openness to all children because this is ingrained in the method itself which relies upon an understanding of the nature of the human person. Your comment “to be sure” indicates you have this mindset where having children is secondary to other lesser purposes in life. This shows how powerful our culture is in distorting the idea that human goodness revolves around selfless love and not the selfish desire to control other persons. NFP does not seek to redefine what our human nature is nor does it distort our ultimate purpose.

Planned Parenthood (PPH), a major provider of contraceptives (and abortion when it fails), insists on this “unwanted children” mentality because it cannot make money off people who have responsible attitudes concerning children; nor from those who desire children and consider all else, a good job, a beautiful car and home, even health for the end of having them. So I strongly agree with you, Robert, that “woman are not machines” and find that this idea of PPH treats them as such by manipulating their bodily “mechanisms” in an effort to change their nature. Sadly unlike Catholic teaching which endorses the natural idea of person and family PPH seeks to prevent a woman’s biological function from functioning. Thus contraception is not just a mindset but a barrier meant to “turn off” a woman’s natural reproductive system in order that they not “breakdown” and have to face the “unwanted” consequences of child bearing. Therefore I disagree with your conclusion that women “do not respond” and in fact have been taught well to welcome being treated as a machine that needs to be “fixed” of it’s biological consequences. I know we normally use this language with animals when we spay or neuter them but sterilizing female persons with chemicals or knives is essentially the same… a fixing of the natural order in accordance with our selfish desire to be without children. If left to nature, as they should be, women would not be having “as many children as possible” but dealing with the same defects of nature as we do today and this is why we have reproductive medicine in the first place. In fact even if we did not have medical problems that hinder normal reproductive function there still is a natural limit to how many children a woman can conceive yet this is never brought out in the cultural debate. In the legitimate sense of the term “fix” we spend millions of dollars annually trying to repair and maximize fertility when children are wanted. So the question becomes why would we pollute a woman’s body with unnatural chemicals and mutilate her reproductive organs calling it medicine? The truth is what we are doing is turning her into a sexual slave (pronounced “machine”) for some selfish male’s pleasure! The thing that really confounds me is why women go along with this cultural mindset? Why do they even go out of their way to demand it except… because they are confused in their thinking.
Ratjaws@aol.com

Yakki PsD,
Allow me to clear up some evident confusion here. You correctly point out that each person’s will is different and not necessarily God’s will. Fine! You’ve stated a general truth… but only a half-truth. It just so happens that each of our wills can conform to God’s will. This is the other side of the coin you overlook. The truth is Christianity has taught this since it’s inception and Judaism is the stream of thought where Christians obtained this truth. In fact the most basic definition of sin states it is a person’s will going against God’s, as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden.

If each of us has our will conformed to God’s then our will’s will be all the same! Wah la! So we can all agree if only we all listen to God. And as Christianity teaches God is perfect goodness who cannot error or lie. So if we follow God’s will we are perfect or at least to the degree we do follow it. This principle in real life works out to mean that a society of people who go against God’s will not live out an ordered and civil life. There will be strife and pain that is unnecessary. We see this all around us. But we also see the contrary where some, at times, conform themselves to God’s will, whether they realize it or not, and this is manifest by a society of people who live in harmony. Simply put they love each other and seek to do no harm.

So whether “your god” or “my god” “means nothing to them,” is irrelevant. The reality is either we live according to our Creator’s will or we don’t. When we do we are not sinning and we live together in peace. When we don’t we fight, personally and in groups. There is war and death, lying, stealing, cheating, etc. The more we follow God’s will, that is the more we live in charity, that is with selfless love, the more we live out happy lives with each other. This is always true… it works whether we recognize it and admit it or not. As that old margerine commercial says “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature!” …Mother Nature being an ambiguous term for God.

Now… as for your statement: “They will do what they WILL, and it’s incombent on us as a society to lessen the impact. That’s why I believe that contraceptives are key. Abstinence based education is a sham. It’s been proven time and again in strict religious settings to NOT WORK.” You are correct it is incumbent upon society to uphold what is good! That being said we have to define good and determine what is good. Goodness is the character all nature has when it conforms to God’s idea of what it is. This takes us right back to God’s will so again you are correct in bringing the subject up in context of contraception. Simply put our nature is good to the degree it comes from God and continues to conform to his omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent Will. We live and move and have our being solely because of God’s willing us into existence and holding us there by his constant idea of us. That’s love!

Think for a moment… if all life ultimately comes from God and if God allows us to take part in it in some way or manner, then here again God’s will is important. Can we who are dependent upon God for our existence cause life on our own apart from God? I’m sure you can see how absurd that idea is. On the contrary God initiates life and we are privileged to partcipate in the process, more commonly termed procreation. It matters not that some eradicate God from the equation because like the force of gravity God is still there despite what we fantasize. So if God is the ultimate source of a new human life then it must be his Will… right? If not then how could it start at all?

Now if God wills any particular act of human sexual intercourse to be fertile then for us to interfere with, or in some way try to thwart it, or to put up a barrier would be to go against God’s will. Enter contraception and more generally sterilization that has the sole purpose of intending to prevent conception. It is a blatant attempt of human beings to go against God’s will (whom they first dismiss exists) which again is perfect goodness, can never be wrong, deceptive or evil. So our use of sterilization techniques including chemical and mechanical contraceptives is illicit because it goes against God’s will to generate new human life. Note here, it’s not simply a matter of matter. It’s not just genes or DNA or whatever other scientific theory, valid as they may be, applies. Something causes this matter, these genes or this DNA to possess it’s powers in potency and this ultimate cause must be what Aquinas called the First Cause or Aristotle (a pagan Greek) called the uncaused Cause.

As my faith teaches a married couple must remain open to conception in order to be within God’s will. It does not teach “we must have as many children as possible” contrary to those who dislike Catholic teaching accuse. In fact my faith accepts what is called Natural Family Planning (NFP) precisely because it allows for our God given use of reason to aid us in determining the spacing of children. With this “method” we are not denying life but spacing the children God gives us because of serious circumstance in our life. With NFP we make full use of our intellectual faculty while not subverting our biological faculity. We simply refrain from intercourse during the fertile period of a woman (which is less than a 24 hour period even though we usually extend it slightly longer over a few days in case of error in judging when that period starts and ends). We willfully abstain but in a reasonable manner guided by a scientific and philosophical understanding of the human body. And note this is within the protection of marriage where sexual intercourse is meant to take place. We use the signs a woman’s body gives (not the so-called rhythm method). Charts are used as drawn from scientific research on a woman’s biological functions. It’s not guess work but well reasoned choice!

The point here is my Catholic faith does not leave me hanging but plants me firmly in the center of reality where I am not “forced” but free to use all my God-given powers. The man and woman choose together when to become pregnant by paying careful attention to their very natures and working with their procreative powers. We don’t introduce artificial barriers but instead use our intelligence to guide our will and decide when to and when not to engage in fruitful activity. We abstain as you say when we want to space children and we engage we decide now is the time (most of the month). This is more properly called chastity. The husband actually works with his wife to determine when to copulate. They are dependent upon each other. When we refrain we do so together… in unity! When we engage we do so together in love. We never treat children as “unwanted” interruptions in our life as our secular culture teaches us to do. We work with nature as our secular culture encourages us to do in every other area of life (except for our generative powers). My faith encourages spouses to live closer to nature by recognizing their very nature.

So as for “abstinence education,” it very well may be “a sham” as you put it. Abstinence only education does not work precisely because it does not recognize what NFP does, which is exactly what human nature is. Natural planning of a family takes into account our greatest good, that is the loving bond between a man and woman; encompasses this around them in the protection of a monogamous marriage; protects whatever new life it generates. It remains faithful to God’s will precisely because of it’s inherent trust in God who initiates every act of new human life. Faith in God who is trustworthy in delivering the means to take care of those lives. In this case it does not trivilialize sex like our culture nor does it make us machines that crank out babies, as our culture accuses. Both extremes are avoided in favor of using the full capacity of human intelligence and volition coupled with a healthy and balanced dominion over our own bodily passions. In this a man and woman work together in a perfect unity of will that conforms itself to God’s. They show their true complimentarity rather than what our secular culture manifests… the selfish use of one another with contraceptives for the sake of maximum pleasure and this at the expense of possible new human life… and where that cannot be avoided… the taking of an already existing life through the unnecessary evil called abortion.

I’ll end with a question… if you offer someone a tool and they neglect to use it does this mean that tool does not work?
Ratjaws@aol.com

Yakki PsD,
Your argument here is very appearant… jump from one extreme to the other instead of dealing with the issue. If “fundi whack job(s)” don’t accept this faceless idea of sexual abuse then they must be for that abuse. On the other hand if we do recognize it as the abuse it is we must not be homophobic about it because they are just like everyone else. This sounds just like the King without any clothes on riding down the village mainstreet and everyone yelling how beautiful his robes are so they won’t offend. Well you can just consider I am that innocent little kid pulling on his mother’s dress asking “Mommy, Mommy! …why doesn’t the King have any clothes on?”

I call it like it is… a male priest who forces or tricks a young boy into sexual acts is not only a sexual abuser but having disordered sex too! I count two strikes against him! In the case it was a male priest forcing a girl to have sex it would only be a single offense… period. And again you IGNORE the Church’s teaching against all of this! Who’s the real hypocrate?

And who is saying homosexuality is a crime? It wasn’t me! Again you jump to extremes so as to confuse an already confusing issue. Same sex acts are disorders which we treat… or at least used to until the AMA and APA gave into the Politically Correct thought on this. Nevertheless, just like the attempt to redefine marriage as other than between a man and woman, moving the beginning of human life to implantation so one can then use abortifacient BC pills is a fiction. Likewise to redefine normal sexual relations as between same sex “partners” or adults and children, or humans and animals …is still wrong! Period! You can’t get around truth by beating around the proverbial bush.

Sexual abuse is a crime… good! Let’s keep it that way. Homosexual acts are disordered… let’s insist the AMA and APA and our society come back to that idea. Let’s also accept that anything that interferes with the natural human sexual act is disordered too and needs to be brought back into order. Simple but true!

MODERATOR: Thanks for the defense but I’m not offended by his language. I’m used to it and realize it is a sign one has no counter argument. It’s sad but true of our cultural dialogue that has to volley between extremes instead of get right down to the real issues.

Here ya go Tim, Facts the worst enemy of the evangelical`s and the screwball GOP. Here’s a rundown of what the American people really think. 73 percent of Democrats agreethat employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost. 65 percent of millenials agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost. 62 percent of women agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost. 58 percent of Catholics agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost. 57 percent of all voters agree “that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.” 55 percent of ALL Americans agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost. 53 percent of Catholic voters agree“that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”

Hey there Tim-- The GOP right who see`s evil in everything. They lie their ass off, and think nothing of taking rights away from others in a nation governed with secular laws. Using fear and smear crap on religious institutions, they have learned to play these fools like a Stradivarius violin. All these GOP assholes need to do any more is say god bless, tell the faithful a long list of bullshit lies, and like the sheeple they have become, the evangelicals become the shills for the removal of others rights. All while those in Washington laugh their ass off, pat each other on the back and say, how easy was that? Now send us more money so we can tell you another lie, and use you again to make sure we keep people in check. Just think they say as they pat each other on the back, if they are dumb enough to believe they will burn in hell,or float on the clouds, it can`t get any easier than it is, god bless now, and get a check in the mail.

Joe Waustinski,
I give credit where it is due… you are correct in saying this nation is not “controlled by religious dogma” because it IS BEING CONTROLLED BY irreligious dogma! Now whether that former dogma will ever trump the latter is to be played out in time as history has already shown it can do. Given our democratic system of the will of the people this means it is possible to reverse the mixup of whose will will be followed. Given our system of governance is fundamentally a Republic we should not have to vote the right laws in place because they are supposed to be inherent as I’ve described previously. The point is right and wrong don’t change just because people are allowed to voice their opinion and vote for whom they want to represent them. The issue isn’t will someone control someone else but who will control who and for what reason? Will those in power respect the good of those they serve or will they dehumanize them by their immoral demands? Our country is built on the balance between laws that protect “unalienable rights” that persons were “endowed by their Creator,” hence “religious dogma” cannot be excluded from the public discussion, and a government of representatives who are entrusted to protect those “unalienable rights,” and is why they are to be voted in by “We The People.”

You state “over 85% of Catholics use some form of contraception” and I have to ask… exactly how do you know? Are you in their bedrooms? I thought only the Church did something as horrific as that! Whether 99% of Catholics did use BC it’s irrelevant to the argument the Church makes against it. That contraceptives are intrinsically evil stands or falls not on how many Catholics use them (who would therefore be hypocrates if they did while freely professing to be Catholics), but on the real ascertainable nature of contraceptives and sterilization in general. If Catholics do go against the teaching of their Church then it is for one of several reasons: either they are ignorant of what it teaches and means by that teaching or they are disobedient. So your point is beside the point.

As for “your world” …even one child abused is one too many! Is that the best argument you have against Church teaching? You have to attack my intent even though you have no way of knowing what my intent could be! The point of the statistics I gave previously was to impress across honest and open minded persons that Catholic priests are not the only offenders in this particular evil. I’ve not done it but I could gather up statistics of the secular and non-religious incidents of sexual abuse. Instead I refrain from it primarily because I don’t want to get into a statistical tug-a-war that in reality gets us nowhere. While stats can be useful they can’t tell us everything about every aspect of reality. This physicists know well as their field is one where statistical analysis is used profusely. Expecially those who work in quantum mechanics there is a disposition to be excessively concerned with mathematical figures to the point of thinking we can “create” new dimensions with them. On the contrary math and stats have to be applied properly in any field including that of comparing rates of abuse between social groups. What is more important is the mentality that would lead a person to believe sexual perversion in any form, including that of controlling “unwanted pregnancies” and same gender sexual intercourse, is a good under any condition. And of course here is where the Church’s area of competence lies as it has a comprehensive system of teaching in moral and natural theology. Sadly our “tolerant” society spurns that teaching to its own detriment and most who do so can’t even articulate the teaching. At the same time this culture insists we are not to “censor” another person’s view …and almost to the point of violence it will push away from Catholic understanding of human nature. I have only to remind you of the constantly touted proposition that the “church and state” are claimed to be separated by a wall to drive this point home. Religion in government is somehow the greatest evil. Why? Because it reveals the truth. I say it is better that we act according to what our society demands and at least hear out the Church’s position concerning sexual morality before we so flippantly dismiss it. This means being able to at least articulate it in a way the Church would say that is a correct understanding.

As for “those who were born gay” one need not be a psychologist or doctor in order to come to the conclusion that the jury is still out as to the truth of this proposition. I myself tend toward denying neither idea… that people are conceived with this defect as well as there is an degree of truth to the idea of cultural conditioning. Nevertheless, the point remains that homosexuality, no matter how it is formed, is a disorder to be carefully and lovingly corrected. Whether this should involve drugs, psychology or moral teaching I think only matters in degree. Medicine is about healing and not calling an abnormal condition normal. Nor is medicine about changing human nature from its definite and distinguishable form. Human beings are what they are, male and female, and to twist this is to deform the person. Men and women are compliments, they fit each other, and to say same sex relations are normal is to say fittingness is not normal. It’s to say complimentariness is not necessary and opens the door to making men and women enemies. This is a basic tenet of Communism in that men and women are locked in a struggle against each other and must fight it out in order to reach a utopia of nature. Radical feminism fell for this thinking and so pits men against women in their doctrines and this is why they support “gender equality” (not to be confused with equality of persons) and insist on abortion to force women to be “equal” to men who cannot carry a child in their womb (because they don’t have one!). So to make women “equal” to men the new feminists have taught our society they need to kill their children and then they will be just like men. Better yet… find a same sex “partner” then you can have all the sexual fun you want without having to resort to messy birth control pills that can fail or do what we want to be “safe, legal and rare” …that last resort… “ending a pregnancy,” because they are “just products of conception” anyway.

The point of all this is that the cultural rhetoric works together to conspire against human life and what is normal. That men and women are created to love each other as they are… male and female, and because they fit together so radically down to their biological parts and they are capable of generating new human life. Same sex relationships cannot do this which means they don’t compliment each other and fit together. We who are ordered correctly don’t need technology to devise ways for us to have children… UNLESS! …we have a defect! In english this means something is wrong. We fix things that are wrong with our medicine… not tell a person they need to just “believe” they are normal and then reorder society to “protect” our new special rights! So bottom line… save your guilt trip and drop the cultural pretense that somewhere in the U.S. Constitution everyone is owed BC pills just because they’ve been so confused to think what is not normal is normal. Contraceptives are contrary-to-conception and that is abnormal just as much as same sex acts of intercourse. They are deficient and this is why sound thinking religious people should not have to give into special interest groups that petition the government to force everyone to play the game of let’s make believe what is disordered is normal. Ratjaws@aol.com

Yakki PsD,
On the contrary, what we need are role models infinitely better than the typical “Stars” and “Idols” of Hollywood, of whom the majority find it impossible to hold a permanent relationship, or political models like Anthony Weiner who disgracefully resigned over sexual misconduct while in public office. Like the Kardashians who are held up as a typical American family but are really aberations who would never be caught dead following any Church teaching, assuming they knew any, our culture is starved of holy role models while the Catholic Church to this day still canonizes saints. I happen to have had the honor of been taught by one, Fr. John Hardon, who is going through the beginning stages of beatification, and who in turn taught Mother Teresa of Calcutta and her sisters in the Missionaries of Charity. Although I myself am fartherest from sainthood I at least have a real idea of what a good model is.

Of course you are correct that Jesus Christ is the Preeminent Model of all other preeminent models, much like he is considered King of kings; but I fail to see how lesser contemporary role models detract from Christ’s ultimate image? Can you explain please? Futhermore need I remind you that Jesus did not come into this world in order to start a religion rather he initiated a Church (Matt. 16:16-20) In your passing judgment on the Church you overlook the thesis I laid out that it is both human and divine. Since it was initiated by a divine Person who also had a human nature this seems reasonable to me. Therefore since true, why should anyone doubt the capacity of such a Church to produce the badly needed saints of even today? And how can a handful of sinful human priests who are supposed to represent Christ overshadow the multitude of saintly priests who do (and have been canonized), except maybe in the case of a culture that spurns turning its eyes in their direction! The problem is not that the Church lacks holy models but that our society is intent on overlooking them… as it has a kind of least common denominator mentality when it comes to presenting good models.

Ratjaws@aol.com

Yakki PsD,
Like you I’ve quoted the Declaration of Independence in this post. Like you I consider “all men are created equal.” Unlike our culture I am not confused as to what “equal” means. My disagreement is not with you or anyone else except where one agrees with our mixed up culture. Human nature is as it is, it’s both fixed and pliable at once. The mutable aspect is not what we talk about here and we can have no disageement over. Rather the unchangeable aspect of our nature is where principles come in and how we know things like a person cannot continue life without ingesting food. That is on the physical level; on the level behind this we know there are other immutable properties to human nature. One is that which you quote from America’s founding document, that we are all equal, not in what we do or how we behave, but in our humanness… in our nature as persons.

So, while a so-called homosexual person is equal to every other person, their behavior is not. This in fact is true of men and women, of ethnicity, and of religious belief. These characteristics within persons are not equal because they are all different. The acts each of us are capable of are not the same. Men are physically different from women, men superior in one way, women superior in another. Each race has a different culture, things they are devoted to, and where that devotion is rooted in truth it is good. Where it is not it is not as good. That is inequality. Likewise for religions, there is truth in all of them but to differing degrees. Among them one can find a religion that has no error where it concerns faith and morals. This is embodied in the Church which Christ started and contrary to what our culture would say, that Church does not have a monoply on truth, for as I just stated other religions possess some truth intermixed with error. Yet equality is rooted in truth, in reality, in nature and therefore in human nature itself.

So that we are persons is why we are equal… NOT that we can do this or that as well as someone else; and so this applies to men, to women, to persons of differing color and religious belief, and to persons who behave in one way or another, whether that behavior is right or wrong. Nevertheless while we always remain equal under the Constitution/Declaration, we can do what is right or what is wrong. Two men kissing in the street or in a bedroom are wrong. This is not about equality. Likewise two women kissing is wrong. I mean this in a sexual way and not in the manner of affection shown by a mother to her daughter, etc. A man and women who kiss in the proper context under the right conditions, and in a sexual manner can never be wrong. This our confused culture disagrees with and has to be changed. In fact it wasn’t always this way.

So when you say “We are all equal in the sight of the law” you are correct if you mean that law must protect our life with equal intensity. Furthermore the law does not protect behavior… it judges it in order to determine whether a law has been broken or not. It looks at individual acts to see if they conform to moral absolutes that are found in nature. In cases where enough persons break moral law we make civil law to keep order in a society. Since heterosexual acts are in conformity to the nature of the human person they can never violate that law (assuming proper context here). On the other hand homosexual acts do not conform, for reasons I have given in other posts, and therefore, it is legitimate to make laws agaisnt them just as it is to outlaw murder, adultery, prostitution, etc. The question of prudence comes in here in that we must ask is a law that is morally good necessary. We cannot legislate against every bad human act so we must choose those that become the greatest problem within a society. Then too some acts, like adultery, are hard to legislate because of their private nature; still we can write laws, but must take care in how we carry them out so as not to offend legitimate privacy. There is a delicate balance.

The point in all this is that a society flourishes either when people recognize good behavior from their properly formed conscience or, because we are fallen and possess a cloudy conscience, from legitimate laws that enshrine good behavior. So whether we as a society ever outlaw homosexuals kissing in the street or not is beside the point… their acts are intrinsically disordered (for reasons I presented before). Nor do these specific kinds of acts fall under our Constitutional protections. Here is where our culture is confused (and you seem to be).

You can rant and rave about “your god” versus everyone else’s god and claim I am not a loving Christian and whatever else you want, but these ideas remain true. Furthermore your indifference to truth is of no concern to the proper order of a society which is what I talk about here. I remind you that this whole line of thought has arisen from Priscilla’s mocking attitude toward Christians like Gretchen Carlson, whom she says are “constantly outraged about how the forces of evil, secular darkness are trying to make life miserable for Christians.” She belittles our concern for society as a whole which cannot exist outside a proper order and as I’ve said, this order is hidden yet clearly seen by those who wish to see it in the nature of each being itself. Our concern as Christians is seeing all of life as it is and where this concerns human relations it is neither a prejudice nor a “homophobic” reaction to make distinctions. It is loving concern that refuses to run with the crowd when that crowd is headed off the proverbial cliff. And just as the evil of slavery was once held by a large segment of society, and eventually ended, so too are all the issues Christians have an “opinion” on. The dialogue should revolve around whether Christian opinion or non-Christian opinion is correct… not name calling and character assassination.

Nor do I wish to live in a theocratic state as you so smugly impose on my intentions. What I intend is that the Republic we are governed under be properly understood and upheld. Anyone who understands the difference between this and the idea of Democracy so easily bantied around knows it is a much better system of governance than majority opinion rules. First, there are fundamental laws in a Republic that cannot be violated and these are precisely what you quote without understanding there significance. They infer order and this means protection of life trumps all other liberties including freedom. Who exactly is free without life? Match this idea up with our current laws that “protect” killing children not born yet and the insane push we have in our culture for birthcontrol that purposely ignores its inherently abortifacient nature; not to mention embryonic stemcell research which destroys a person in order to “benefit already existing persons;” euthanasia that claims compassion is to kill a person rather than killing pain; IVF technology that removes natural relations from the procreation and can leave a person in a frozen limbo; pornography where the participants willingly sterilize themselves in the name of maximum pleasure and production of “art” for public consumption created in the “privacy of one’s bedroom;” prostitution where a woman uses her body as a means to income with obsessive mindset aimed at avoiding the fruit of sexuality; not to mention the homosexual’s inherently sterile acts; all which in some way attack or seek to prevent human life… and you see we have drifted a long way from our founder’s Republic. Add to this our equally insane rush to be like European Union countries by ignoring the Constitutionality of states rights while expanding federal powers indefinitely in the name of social, economic and educational reform; allowing government to inflate the dollar, control bank interest rates, wage and prices, and our fractional reserve banking system that considers money not possessed an asset… and it’s a wonder we have any freedoms or economic prosperity left. The point is our government’s primary business in not being involved in social reform, education, the economy, private business, or medicine but rather defending our country from those who would harm us. This means not cutting back on our military and leaving our borders open to anyone who wants in, including terrorists, but maintaining a military force large enough and equiped to be ready for any situation. It also means a police force able to respond when honest hard working citizens ask for help rather than a government looking over our shoulders with it’s militia-like regulators in an effort to keep us in line with current PC thinking (pronounced “politically corrupt”).

Interestingly as I write this Proposition 8 in California has been struck down by a single man, an unelected judge. In 2008 a vote of We The People (52:48) against redefining marriage by Constitutional Amendment called the California Marriage Protection Act took place. It had nothing to do with homosexuality yet is being posed as against the “rights of same-sex couples.” Back in 2000 a similar statute was struck down by a judge in Proposition 22. Neither proposition affected domestic partnerships or their right to associate in public or private. Neither proposition has anything to do with medical or retirement benefits in relation to these partnerships. So two men in unelectable government positions essentially went against the will of the people intent on protecting the character of marriage ingrained within the nature of each person. Apart from the more fundamental aspect of this social problem we should all be alarmed that a handful of government officials have overridden the will of the American people simply to grant a small segment of society special rights.

That my Christian friend is just a surface appraisal of our problems in this country. Instead of allowing free thought rooted in charity and directed toward the good of all persons this culture insists everyone should be “free” to do as they please without regard for evil. We just rename the evil… abortion becomes “my right to choose.” Marriage between a man and woman is reduced to make sexual relations between two men or two women as if equivalent. Equality of nature is replaced by equality of actions, politically equal access is perverted to equal outcome where race relations are concerned… and on and on we go. Where we end up won’t be the kind of utopia envisioned by the elites in our government making all these social changes but rather a world where the strong exert their will over the weak. Does this sound familar? It’s akin to the evolutionary dogma we’ve been fed in our government run schools, only forced upon Americans by those we carelessly elect, who then in turn appoint rogue judges who legislate instead of ejudicating law, and force their will upon us whom they are supposed to represent! If this is what you want then you leave and find one that fits your “opinion” …or better yet start your own! As for Christians like Mrs. Carlson and me we CHOOSE to maintain what the founders gave us not by fiat but by vote, verbal persuation and teaching what is true. Thanks!
Ratjaws@aol.com

Mr. Blahblah,
Thanks for the admission of error…
Ratjaws@aol.com

Antoinette,
Let’s do a Priscillian FACT CHECK on the subject you impose on birth control. This information comes from a CNN article dated 02/27/2004 concerning a report by John Jay College over the period of 1950 to 2002. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse12.htm)

Of some 109,694 priests and permanent deacons, 4,392 were accused (41 were permanent deacons). This means 96% of priests have NOT been accused of any sexual misconduct. In addition 75% of these occured between 1960 and 1984, roughly during the time our society was involved in it’s sexual revolution, the so-called “free love” hippie generation that initiated the anti-tradition/anti-authoritarian movements. Also it’s important to note that 81% of the victims were young males making this predominately a crime involving not just pedophilia but homosexuality… a fruit of this pornified and promiscuous generation.

I suspect these figures have changed since the report’s study period but what needs to come out is this scandal, is a mirror of what’s happening within our culture. Those priest who are monsters, as you correctly call them, have their counterparts in our society and it’s institutions. A recent incident involved Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky who just prior to his death, was arrested on charges of sexually abusing eight boys across a 15-year period; arraigned and released on $100,000 bail after being charged with 40 counts related to sexual abuse of young boys. Note again the alleged crimes are homosexual in nature. A typical article found on the Huffington post headlined with: “Jerry Sandusky On Joe Paterno’s Death: This Is A Sad Day!’” rather than as “the retired Penn State assistant coach who faces child sex abuse charges” (mentioned later in the article). In an ESPN article “Sandusky said in a statement, making no mention of the scandal that erupted after the abuse allegations came to light. ‘Nobody will be able to take away the memories we all shared of a great man, his family, and all the wonderful people who were a part of his life.’”

Why in most articles we see on Sandusky and Paterno don’t we see more focus on whether these men were guilty or complicit in these alleged crimes? Why not analyze to death the secular occurance of sex abuse? Why the preoccupation with only Catholic incidents? What you and others (who constantly bring up this subject) fail to talk about is that these “monsters” are breed by a culture steeped in sexual confusion. This culture lifts up a “sexy body” as the ultimate factor in “love” and writes prolifically on sexual technique and ways to obtain more pleasure from your lover… and mostly apart from any moral context. I say the reason is because the Church is the preeminent model of holiness in this world. This is precisely why it is singled out because it’s reputation should be without spot. Does this suprise you I’d admit this?

Well the Church is without sin depending on what aspect of the Church you consider; the divine or human? This is true since the Church is a composite of both. The former imperfect as it is the fallen human element. The latter without spot and cannot error since it is the divine element and this FACT, can be found in Church teaching. Did you know this? This applies to your comment on priestly scandal in that NO WHERE IN Church teaching will you ever find that homosexual acts, sodomy, rape or sexual abuse are good. No, rather it teaches that homosexual PERSONS are to be treated with dignity even though they are disordered in their behavior. The Church teaches sodomy, rape and abuse are evil and anyone who commits them, whether priest or laity, has sinned and needs to confess and make restitution. It also teaches sexual promiscuity and adultery are evils too. This Church upholds lifelong monogamous marriage between a man and woman as the only standard for human sexuality… AGAINST that culture! It teaches that authentic sexuality involves love and life with pleasure a secondary consequence meant to encourage the commitment and work these two purposes demand.

In short the Church you and so many others condemn for a small fraction of the priesthood’s monsterous behavior, probably less than 1% after we count actual convictions, SEEMS to have the only remedy for these “monsters.” It even seems to have answers for the victims in it’s teaching on compassion (Latin: cum, with + passio, suffer “to suffer with”) and forgiveness. And this contrary to our society’s anything goes attitude taken to the point of petitioning the government to change the definition of marriage! A culture that redefines the nature of the human person and sexuality and wants to impose divorce as good and normal; and has virtually legalized pornography as a Constitutional “right.” This porn I might add is closely related to the confusion at the root of sexual abuse and other sexual disorders like pedophilia, sodomy and rape. That same culture insists sterilizing the sex act is natural and good and when nature suprises a couple with “unplanned children,” it insists aborting them is another “good” because they are not persons unless wanted! And this just the tip of the cultural iceberg… So really, between the Church’s teaching and our cultural mindset whom do you think has the cure for those “monsters” in the Church? And why is birthcontrol ASSUMED TO BE NOT related to all those other sexual evils? Where is the consistency of teaching and it’s coherence in our sex crazed culture? Ratjaws@aol.com

Priscilla,
Quote: “If Fox were ‘fair & balanced,’ maybe they could speak with this woman who says this: ‘My husband works at a Catholic hospital so our family health insurance doesn’t cover any kind of birth control at all. If I need to go to the doctor to discuss birth control, that doesn’t get covered either. So if I wanted the pill, a diaphragm, or IUD, not even the consult appointments would be covered by my insurance.’”

If I am to believe what you say about Fox News being so unfair and unbalanced I’m sure you will have to apologize too. Why are all your commentaries against the Catholic Church and Fox News… never in support? I mean if you were as “fair and balanced” as you claim they must be shouldn’t you present their pro’s and not just the con’s?

Anyhow, “FACT CHECK!” Once again you repeat the words that “Emergency contraception prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.” Then you say: “As the medical community (and other faith communities) do not believe that pregnancy begins until implantation it is not universally considered an abortion.” Ok, let’s be “fair and balanced” here and stipulate that according to those who oppose religious influence in culture and government it’s the always “scientific facts” we want, and not the “beliefs” or dogmas of religious believers. So how does this accord with your proposition that because some “do not believe that pregnancy begins until implantation” we all must accept the idea that “If a woman is pregnant EC does not induce an abortion.?”

Does anyone see the inconsistency here? I mean shouldn’t we be looking at the scientific findings to determine when a pregnancy first occurs? What person in the “medical community” or “other faith communities” would say the scientific findings tell us that an implanted “fertilized egg” is any different genetically than the egg a moment after feritilization (or later in life outside the womb even up to the point of natural death)? If this living being is not different except for growth, the exercise of potential powers and maturity of appearance then why would we make a distinction where it concerns the protection of human beings? Don’t we all have to pass through these early stages of life?

Beyond this fundamental point and going back to the first quote, I say the distinction I make above gives religious persons as well as Catholics, not just the right but the duty to question Obamacare and it’s mandates concerning all forms of birthcontrol. In fact I question why is the government in healthcare at all? Why can’t the American people continue the high quality of care they had in the past before government regulation became so heavily burdensome as we find it today? Don’t take me wrong… I am not a Libertarian as Ron Paul is, but I am not a Liberal/Progressive, or worse, a Socialist, or even worse, a Communist! I am for personal responsibility with the government intervening only after one of our fundamental rights have been violated… and these are our “right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.” And this only when the government is petitioned or has been asked to intervene. Bottom line it seems this issue of healthcare and who is going to run it, and how, concerns that very first and most fundamental right-to-life that cannot be violated and is the government’s first and most important duty to protect! If we as religious persons think abortifacient contraceptives harm human beings even in preimplantation stage, shouldn’t the government error on the side of caution and allow us exemptions from having to fund any law we think conflicts with our moral conscience? I mean come on…. if I were in an elected office and claimed blacks were only 3/5ths a person and therefore their life could be taken without just cause… wouldn’t you question my motives and at minimum claim a conscience claus for yourself if I ordered you from an official position of power to do so?
Ratjaws@aol.com

Yakki PsD,
First off let’s get something straight… this comment “because of your religious convictions” borders on condescending and I am calling you out on it! My position has theological underpinnings IN ADDITION TO philosophical and scientific elements. I know it’s culturally appropiate to accuse someone who disagrees with your “fact based opinion” that they are being influenced by “your god” or “your beliefs” or “your blind faith” or whatever PC euphemism is currently the fad (which is exactly why the “Left” has been accused of a “politically correct” ideology). I reject such immature linguistic tactics and insist we be honest with each other here, honest and open as to what exactly we mean and where we come from. I’ve made it no mystery in this thread alone (Priscilla’s article on Gretchen Carlson) as to where I come from and why I believe what I do. Yet I’m called a “fundamentalist” Christian, which I am not! I’m accused of being in a “false religion” and of somehow being associated with Pat Robertson. I am a firm Catholic of a philosophical persuation called Thomist Realism (moderate) and because of this accept sound scientific criteria in all my arguments. In other words my Catholic faith may undergird all I understand but not to the detriment of authentic metaphysics or physics! If you want to argue your case with me stick to substantial arguments referenced to the subject at hand and not comments like the above designed to attack the messenger. I realize most of the other examples I gave above you are not guilty of and am thankful… but I tire of name calling… and I dislike it when “We The People” act like politicians claiming that every problem can be solved if we are just big enough to “compromise.” My view of this world is principled as I hope each of the people I argue with is, and because of this, I cannot compromise! I cannot because to do so would be to imply I have no principle. For me to change my mind on any subject one must present to me reasonable argument… period!

That being said, you have some good points, and questions which I will endeavor to answer. I think the substance of your argument and confusion lies in the second paragraph of your comment but I will start by addressing this comment first: “If it’s free will, then it’s FREE WILL. The will to not have a child in the case of having sex is the choice here. Anything that blocks that removes free will.” You make my case but you will not understand it unless we speak of intelligence in relation to freedom. I assume you’ve had association to the opposite sex and possibly you are married. Now can the possession of either a friend or a spouse occur if you did not know about that person? The answer is readily apparent and summed up in this general principle “we cannot love what we do not know.” Human freedom, the will’s ability to choose, however you want to state it is directly associated with knowledge and cannot be otherwise. What I don’t know I cannot choose! The contrary is impossible and so, to speak of human freedom in a vacuum is to speak incompletely, and this leads to confusion. In context of our subject, this cultural idea that we can reduce all argument to “choice” under a Constitutional mandate… is baseless. Unless we are animals who lack an intellect and cannot make moral choices, our choice is only possible with knowledge. Thus if we take away knowledge or obscure it we take away the power to choose or obscure it. None of us can get around this truth as choice is bound up with what we know.

That said we can disect the most common cultural context we hear the choice argument used… and that concerns abortion. It has been claimed abortion is a “right” because it revolves solely around a woman’s ability to choose. What is rarely if ever stated is what is being chosen and as I’ve laid out above, we cannot make a choice without the prerequisites of freedom. The object of choice in an abortion is the “fetus,” or in other words the child growing in the woman’s womb at whatever stage it may be. The more ambiguous term “fetus” or similar is commonly used in order to move the focus away from the humanity of that living being growing within the woman. Notice what I am doing here… I am laying out what we know about this subject. I am talking about facts, that something living is growing in it’s mother’s womb, and since the mother is human it makes perfect since to assume the organism is also human. These facts bear out scrutiny under a microscope (or with current technology with fiber optic cameras or ultrasound technology). The point being the choice refered to here concerns that of ending the life of the offspring in that woman’s womb more commonly called a child, or if you will, scientifically termed a zygote, embryo, fetus (Latin for “little one”) or baby. These terms all refer to the same being whether in different stages of life or of terms of affection (baby vs. child). We know these things! Authentic science supports them as facts. Major and minor logic taught in good philosophy courses also support what I’m saying here… that the choice being refered to in every case of procured abortion revolving around a female human being involves another human being. It cannot be otherwise… “My choice my body” has to include the child’s choice and the child’s body to be fully inclusive and thus fair.

My conclusion is that when someone tells me an abortion is about “my choice” in my mind I fill in the blanks that it is her choice to abort her child. Because I know this I also know it is a choice, but the real question, the more important criteria is to ask whether it is a good or bad choice? This moral component is true irrespective of whether I ask it or the woman involved asks or whomever. The answer will always be the same no matter who asks it. Now notice even if we neglect to ask it does it change anything of the reality of the situation? Of course not! It remains the choice of a woman to decide, concerning the child in her womb, whether to continue it’s life or end it, and whether this is morally good or evil? She does not decide in the sense she causes the answer but rather she discovers it. And the answer to consistently thinking persons is always the same. It is an evil to end the life of another human being who is innocent of no crime that would justify the death penalty… period! Abortion that is willed by the mother for any reason other than to save her life is wrong. In fact in the case of an ectopic pregnancy when this danger occurs the doctor seeks to save both, and if the child dies, there is absolutely no moral guilt on the mother or doctor. The key is neither intended to end the life of that child whose life itself endangered the mother’s life which in turn endangers the child. An ectopic pregnancy must be acted upon or both will die. Procured abortion which has been legalized in this country has nothing to do with the scenario. So-called legal abortion has to do with wanting to eliminate a person who is innocent and helpless and poses no physical threat to any woman who is in the state of being a mother. This precisely because of a choice she made previous to the now so important “choice” that it must be enshrined in law to “protect” a woman’s “right.” That “right-to-choose” of the mother has been misconstrued within our culture to trump the “right-to-life” of the child, and for no just reason. These facts are what science, philosophy and theology all make clear. That our culture has accepted this faulty thinking only manifests the ignorance and confusion revolving around the subject of freedom and knowledge itself, both capacities of every normal human person.

So now we move to the issue of contraceptives which you claim are necessary because “If it’s free will, then it’s FREE WILL. The will to not have a child in the case of having sex is the choice here. Anything that blocks that removes free will.” You’ve made numerous mistakes in thinking here; first in claiming freedom or choice MUST occur after the choice to have sexual intercourse occurs. Second you assume a perfect technology, that ideal birth control pills exist that don’t have an abortifacient quality, which even the manufactures of the pill deny in their disclaimer literature. Third you’ve assumed that it is moral to place a barrier between a man and woman intent on engaging in sexual intercourse.

I’ll take the last first. As I’ve laid out in other posts on this thread contraceptives are immoral precisely because they interfere with normal natural sexual relations of a man and woman. Purpose lies within the nature of a being and it is no different for human beings. Our bodies scream out that purpose! A man’s bodily organs are formed in such a way that they fit perfectly a woman’s bodily organs. Do you deny this? Does not scientific scrutiny bear these facts out? Biologically there is no natural means for new human life to be generated apart from a man and woman’s mutual cooperation. Sure we are able to use IVF technology, which by the way involves “sperm donation” or to “sleep with a person of the opposite sex for the privilige.” We are not fooling nature with these technologies because it still takes the material from two persons to initiate the generation process. But key here is that the techniques themselves take the act out of its natural context. It becomes impersonal, mechanical, and as such is a denial of authentic love. And here we come full circle because when I speak of love I am refering to the human will or to freedom; for that is the essential definition of love. Philosophically we say our will is the intellect’s appetite for the good it finds in being. Human will (or freedom) is our desire, a movement of our intellect toward some good it perceives. Human free will are terms synonymous with the word love… or more theologically charity (selfless love). And as I’ve deliniated above this love or will or freedom requires as a prerequisite intelligence. We cannot love apart from knowledge. This is written into our nature. It is what we call the human person. We cannot deny it out of reality… period! And this is why I insist along with every sexual act there must be fruit… because that is the nature of the copulative act. To put a barrier up and prevent this fruit is to deny love because it is to take away from human freedom true knowledge of the authentic human person that is essential to it. Not just this negation but the artificiality you speak of in IVF. I mean here that either by blocking the natural sexual act from achieving its purpose or by taking it out of context of a man and woman in a natural and intimate setting of intercourse between two persons of the opposite sex, is to cause the act to become immoral. To be loveless is to be immoral is to set aside freedom. It’s to deny the freedom that normalicy IS!

So, whether you “feel” for the homosexual couple, or just simply want your way apart from reality, you lose! They lose! You lose your freedom by giving it up over to either an immoral choice or fantasy (thinking what is unnatural is natural). Either way you are not more free but become enslaved by your passions because what is left after we take away these essential ingredients of human sexuality? We are left with sexual pleasure alone… hence the drive to contracept. We’ve reduced the natural act to it’s secondary component of feeling good. It is why pornographers concentrate so heavily on beauty, sexual “toys,” clothing, techniques and positions. This is why the push for contraceptives is so powerful. But again we have to deny the two essential meanings of human sexuality… the unitive (love) and the procreative (life).

Quote: “And removing their choice, because of your religious convictions, or mine for that matter, is not going to happen. Free will is what it is. People make bad decisions and they’ll keep making them. A safety net in cases of those bad decisions is a good thing. Love is an ephemeral concept when talking hard data. And the data shows that we screw too much and get in trouble too much and a lot of times a contraceptive will help alleviate later problems instead of producing children no one wants. And children, I might add who will suffer for those same ‘sins of the father’ that got them here in the first place. Surely you can agree, as a compassionate and religious minded person that this is a far better way than millions of suffering children that no one, including religious sources, can or want to take care of.”

Now there is so much packed into this paragraph of yours that I will only skim over the top of it because of space and time. First I agree with your statement that freewill is what it is and in fact I insist it cannot be changed. But that is essentially what you are doing. We cannot mutate it into something that it is not and this is essentially what our culture has been trying to do by redefining what it is. Choice, will, freedom, love cannot be made apart from an intellect or knowledge of some being precisely because of what I’ve explained above: that the will or love is our intellect in operation! When we act on what we know we are loving but this only to the degree we move toward what is good… never what is evil. You claim "we screw too much and get in trouble too much " and I say this is exactly because we relinquish freedom. We set aside our choice prior to sexual intercourse, apart from ensuring it takes place in it’s natural context, and then claim we are now going to make a choice to “prevent” the fruit or “abort” the result. To refrain from sexual intercouse is a choice our culture and you overlook and in the process we exchange freedom for a non-freedom… reality for fantasy. You say love is ephemeral… I say it is concrete and definable and of ultimate importance. I say intellectual love is not the same as romantic or emotional love, the latter changeable and therefore “ephemeral” as you suggest. You claim we need a “safety net” for bad decisions. I say we should be teaching others NOT to choose to make those “bad” decisions in the first place. THINK before you engage in sex! Ask am I willing to accept the consequence of intercourse… of the pleasure we all seek from sex? If not I should avoid the act, not commit the act then try to avoid the consequence (a new life). Also I say if one does make a “mistake” that we don’t kill that mistake but welcome it into this world because “it” is a person like us! I say there are “millions of suffering children” precisely because people without authentic love, without selfless love don’t “want to take care” for them. I say the answer is not to prevent them from coming into being or kill them after they’ve entered this world by pretending that conception is not their beginning, but we turn from our selfishness toward charity. Is this too hard for you to comprehend? If it is then you don’t have a choice because you cannot exercise choice without knowledge!

I also say as a religious person that some day these persons we’ve denied exist by aborting them we will meet in the next life. I also say that when we face God he will ask us why we rejected so many of the people he wanted us to conceive (to have)? I say he will make it known to us what our selfish desires prevented us from possessing. God can enlighten us as to what those persons WOULD HAVE BEEN like, those whom we denied existence to because we were too preoccupied with life and the pleasure we could extract from it. We exercised choice to prevent them but it was a bad choice. I say that to “alleviate later problems instead of producing children no one wants” IS THE PROBLEM! All we have to do to solve this problem is to change our mind… to CHOOSE life… to desire the children we don’t want now. It’s simple and doesn’t require technological intervention. If we truly don’t want a child right now we have the power to say NO to sexual intimacy… and this won’t kill us as abortifacient contraceptives and surgical/chemical abortive techniques kill new life.

Quote: “‘And closing one’s mouth in the face of evil is not American… it’s cowardice!’ Define this ‘evil’ for me, please. What are you claiming is evil?”
Answer: All of the above. I’ve laid this out in other posts too. Do I need reitterate?
Quote: “I mean, think of it this way, in terms of religious thought, ok? If you have a species of flatworm floating out there, and it is in fact asexual, and impregnates itself….is it not a chronic masterbator? Or is it a hermaphrodite? The cases are not the same certainly, but the thoughts on them should be consistent from a religious point of view. To not have these equally listed with disgust, is hypocritical thinking. If such a case were to be based on your premise that fruitfulness is what counts, priests of many different religions should be spat upon on the street as they produce nothing.”
Answer: If you just look up the words you use in these questions you will see the answer. Notice even in the Wikipedia the term “hermaphrodite” is called a disorder. They are exceptions to the rule and we don’t make good law or general decisions or universal principles based upon exceptions. Also to be “asexual” is not to be human. It doesn’t apply to us. And even with an answer what you propose is silly in context of this subject. You compare non-intellectual animals to intellectual human persons in an absolute way. All analogy breaks down if taken beyond their obvious intent and therefore are never intended to be taken too far. As you say they are “not the same” and so consistency breaks down within the analogy… while the comparison has valid merit.

One final point is very important because of the cultural push to demonize Catholic priests (which I wonder if it has to do with why you frame your proposition the way you do?). When I speak of fruitfulness it is only in context of matrimony. Priests are not married within the Catholic Latin rite so your proposition cannot apply. Within Orthodox rites where they are allowed to marry the same principle of maintaining human sexuality within it’s natural context applies to them as it does the laity. Also it does not mean have as many children as possible but means one MUST REMAIN OPEN to the children God gives them. We know that conception does not occur with every natural act of copulation (in fact often times needs help). Bottom line, the principle of conjugal fruitfulness does not apply outside of marriage where human sexuality cannot morally take place. It’s astounding to me how you could make this mistake in thinking assuming your point is not just to make fun of the principle by envoking such an absurd requirement. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider you’ve just made a mistake in logic as opposed to malecious intent. Anyhow I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this very important subject.
Ratjaws@aol.com

Yakki PsD,
“Contraceptives do not impregnate people. WANGS do!” …the truth is human free will is the cause of pregnancy since it takes a man and woman to a conceive new life who have the capacity to desire. Prior to any biological act at least one person involved has to assent to the act before it can occur. Even if we examine the case of rape, where one person forces another (usually a male forcing a female), we still find the rapist makes a choice… just an evil one. All the rhetoric revolving around the abortion/contraception issue misses the point by focusing on the “choice” apart from consequence of that choice. Every act of abortion is a choice at least one individual makes. Every act against conception at least one individual makes. The point is “wangs” don’t think because they are human organs… persons do. If you want to reduce the subject to human organs you effectively eliminate the most essential human element… the human will… that is the intellect’s appetite for the good it finds in being. In other words love! To do so is dehumanizing as was slavery. It strips a person of what they are fundamentally. It denies our body expresses what we are essentially. It’s a rejection of our true nature. Is this where we want to go? Nazi Germany. Stalinist Russia. Those times and places where some humans were treated as less than what they were.

“I might see your point if it was rampant sex openly in the street, or if gay people were stopping at every intersection to shake their penises at others or something. But that’s not happening anywhere in any number to be any sort of problem. So what exactly are homosexuals doing in public that offends you so much?”

Offense? Again let’s shift the focus from offending me (and Christians in general) to the actual subject… homosexuality concerns two men or two women engaged in sexual intercouse. Let’s not beat around the bush like our culture does and define our terms. Two men or two women copulating together have no future… there is no fruit! A society built on them is sterile. This means there is no possibility of children being conceived and as a result the human race will die off. Ok, let’s ignore the last part of that statement and concentrate on the less conspiratorial idea that new life is not possible. In english this means children are impossible within homosexual relationships. So what you say! The point is our culture is so focused on pleasure and especially sexual pleasure that we completely miss what is written into human nature. Men and women fit together like a glove fits a hand. Men and women are not in competition with each other for “equality” but rather compliment each other. We fit together and biologically this is factual… a woman’s body receives the man’s body. Can you deny this? We were made for each other! Contrary to our cultural mindset two men are alike and therefore biologically incapable of exercising their innate power to generate new life. Likewise for two women who cannot possibly fit together. Homosexual persons cannot unite and so there is no possibility of new life coming from their interaction. They make impossibe one of the two purposes of human sexuality and that is to procreate. From a Christian perspective this means to cooperate with God in generating children that will carry on the human race. In doing so they eliminate by default any possibility of the second purpose of sexuality which is to love. This is because authentic human love is the precusor to new life and so must be always open to new life in order to be love. Cultural rhetoric suggests procreation means a couple lose their freedom because they must work to have as many children as possible but this is a false assumption. To remain open is to allow God to decide how many children a couple should have and trust him to provide the means. Assuming God is omnipotent why should we worry? In our fallen state we impose our will over God’s will insinuating he cannot take care of the children he gives us. It comes down to an issue of trust and faith in a Being greater than us, who is our Cause, who maintains us in existence, and who has to power to take care of all our needs including that of generating and raising children. Like pornography which openly promotes it, homosexual acts are sterile.

So public lewdity is just a symptom to the overall problem. A “gay couple” on the streets kissing represents a complete denial of the aforementioned truths. They are disordered human beings. Persons who have gone astray. The fact that this eventually escalates to people exposing their private parts in public merely solidifies the seriousness of the charge. The degree of offense does not matter as you imply we should only become concerned when many are involved. What is our concern is that human beings have deviated from their true purpose prior to taking up a homosexual mindset. They’ve already reduced human sexuality to extracting pleasure from another person without concern for it’s true purpose which is to unite with a person of the opposite sex and out of this unity to generate children. Simply put this purpose is love and life! This explains why our culture is so obsessed with physical beauty and sexual technique (sexual toys, positions and beauty). Love is lost as we use the other person for our own selfish pleasure in rejection of our natural procreative powers. We are a pornographic culture that considers prostitution as a normal “vocation” and use medical science, which normally seeks to heal or bring human nature back to it’s intended purpose, as a means to subvert and thwart natural biological functions. We desire to remake ourselves with our own mistaken ideas!

So the point is not to outlaw anything but to teach thinking human beings that our natural tendencies are good. In recognizing this it needs to be pointed out that nature has a purpose that is flexible within predefined limits. Nature determines what we are… not we determine what our nature is by imagination. More generally we discover truth, we don’t cause it. Our nature is revealed by our bodies in that a male and female fit together in a way that same sex individuals cannot. The truth of this matter is right in front of our eyes so-to-speak.

“And for the record, I love Christmas” “Do I mind that it’s actually a pagan holiday coopted to put a Christian slant on it?” Congratuations, you’ve just stated the Catholic position… that pagan ideas were taken over by Christians and wherever they were correct they were synthesized with Christian truth… thus that the sky is blue on a cloudless sunny day is combined with the idea that God causes it. This does not deny the physical “mechanics” of it… that the blue color is caused by light moving through the atmosphere. Nor does God being the ultimate cause detract from the fact that genes predispose human behavior and nature to be what it is. As we say in philosophy truth is one! Pagans may have concluded that the planets and stars have causal effect on earth and to the degree this is true (the moon’s gravity causes ocean tides) the Church accepts and welcomes it. But the Church has long recognized “secular” truth as being coincident with religious or theological truth. They have the same source. So whatever celebrations pagans have that are in accord with some reality the Christian church accepts. Where it is found to be wrong the Church purges and in the process purifies. The synthesis of faith and morals with scientific and philosophical truth has long been recognized by the Church as is evidenced by St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings. So whatever good there is in pagan ideas that can be associated with Christ’s birth there is no inconsistency there. The Church has long gone into a culture and taken whatever ideas it finds, purges what is in error, then combined this with it’s own area of expertise concerning the reality of God and man. Christmas is therefore a celebration of the birth of a human being who claimed to have a divine nature. The actual day being right or wrong is not of consequence as it is the general truth that God became man and dwelt among us which is… and from there we move on to the gospel, the “good news” that God became man in order to save us from ourselves.

“I was raised a Christian. I believe in Christ. I do also believe in freedom of choice.” Great! If you’ve accepted the idea of human freedom then you’ve already exercised your freedom to choose. But let’s define terms here… what exactly is choice? …freedom? From my Christian perspective we are free to choose the good. This definition excludes evil. So our will which is said to be free has as its purpose to choose between goods… and again never what is evil. Evil being the deprivation of a necessary good. Simply put good is an entity, something that exists having a nature, while evil is the lack of nature or it’s goodness and as such is not an existing thing. Thus your next statement “I believe that if others are doing something else, then I leave them be” taken along with “freedom of choice” is insufficient as it says nothing about what is being chosen. We are able to rob banks, right? We are not free to rob banks precisely because as I said above our freedom must have as its goal only what is good. To steal from someone else is an evil and therefore not a valid choice. We can do it but we are not our exercising freedom in its proper sense. If you knew someone was about to go rob a bank would you remain silent? Would you “leave them be?” Likewise for contraceptive, abortive and homosexual acts… all are evil in some way so it would be just as wrong for us to “leave them be” as it would be with a bank robber. So whenever someone uses the word “choice” open ended we need to ask them to identify the choice to do what? And closing one’s mouth in the face of evil is not American… it’s cowardice! Americans to some degree have traditionally been “our brother’s keeper” (Genesis Chapter 3). Ratjaws@aol.com

Robert,
“Second. I fail to find ANY connection between Don’t ask and a ruling that the government has no right to come into your bedroom and look for contraceptives.”

In the first place, if contraceptives were illegal as they should be, there wouldn’t be anyone in your bedroom just as there is no one there looking for pornography which currently has laws on the books against it. Enforcement of such moral evils for practical reasons must attack the production and distribution levels. If they cannot be made and sold then no one could own or use it. Of course the internet and modern recording media have changed all this making it virtually impossible to stop pornography without entering the average person’s bedroom which has become the prefered place of production. The only remedy for porn now seems to be that of education. With contraceptives that cannot be transmitted by electronic means laws can still be legislated to stop it’s manufacture and sales for the public good. As demographers know any society that does not replace itself with more than 2.1 children per family is doomed to extinction.

Next, if you read more closely I was contrasting legitimate freedoms like prayer in the military, which although they may “offend” someone’s irreligious sensibilities harm no one, with illegitimate “freedoms” like expression of homosexual acts and lewdity in public, contraceptive use and procured abortion. The latter are all intrinsically evil… precisely because sodomy and contraceptives (and more generally sterilization) interfere with or make impossible the natural fruit of human copulation. Abortion and abortifacient contraceptive chemicals take the life of already existing human persons. In contrast a person expressing their faith whether it be Christian, Buddhist, Zen, Scientiology or whatever harms no one.

It irritates me to no end that non-religious people can offend Christian sensibilities by their vulgar language in public with impunity but when we flip the coin over particular things Christians might say become so offensive that we need to make law to supress them. For instance that sodomy is a sin or when the question is posed in public to someone: “Do you know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?” It seems it hasn’t dawned on people who dislike it that all they have to do is walk away! (…or if you will, say that offends me… shut up!) Instead the offended invoke government to truncate freedom of speech for religious persons while demanding they be free to “express” themselves with public nudity, blatant sexual inuendo or offensive language. Do you not see the inconsistency here?
Ratjaws@aol.com

Robert,
I appreciate your reply. The concern over religious expression is not about “everywhere” rather it’s concern centers on government property as well as public places like courts, schools, libraries, etc… If the current trend continues religious expression will be relagated solely to private property… the last step being like in Nazi Germany where even that was no longer sacred.

Even you admit the trend is toward private expression rather than public when you recognize it should be “done in private between them and their god.” Of course this is a Protestant view of prayer that does not necessarily spill over into religious expression in their mind. The Catholic view sees all expression of faith as both private and public. My making the Sign of the Cross in public in no way forces you to do anything or endangers your life or privacy or curtails your own expressions in public. The only limit there should be on public expression is not when it is “offensive,” as this is too ambiguous; a sense our culture now holds to; but when it is immoral. And here lies the rub, a culture that thinks “expressions” like vulgarity or pornography should be protected by the Constitution is a culture that also rejects traditional moral teaching because traditionally vulgarity and pornography were considered harmful, not just to those exposed to it against their will, but to all involved.

As for morality, human beings are unique in that they are the only animal that has a sense of it. We know of right and wrong in two ways. The first is called Natural Law, the study of one’s conscience; the second is from revelation. This latter source of moral knowledge comes directly from a Being who cannot error or lie… to the human race through a chosen few. Apart from getting into why such a Being would chose not to reveal such truths to everyone (in a sense it has been in each of our consciences which are imperfect), to deny that divine revelation exists because you are not one of the chosen, is to manifest a jealousy that ultimately consumes those who hold to it. This shows in the denial there are absolutes in this world and especially where it comes to moral norms. Either we live by unchanging moral codes or we eventually parish as a society. This may be a little over simplified because empirically one finds a society without moral norms ends with either a dictator in control or the chaos of everyone doing their own thing. The point is morality is real and comes from outside of us even though we have a somewhat fuzzy sense of it inside ourselves.

Finally, to say one “creates” jobs implies they have capital and produce goods or service needs. In the case of you or me or any other person or business we either start with the capital necessary or borrow it. Then we manufacture a product or serve someone else’s needs. From this productivity we obtain back the original investment plus a profit. With that profit we pay off our loan if taken out and funnel some back into capital investment when necessary. In the case of government, it owns nothing that is not given to it by “We The People.” This simple fact is called taxation. When the government builds roads or dams (even if it produces something valuable like electricity) it does so with our money! It is not a for profit proposition and as such is not a business. And note that those tasks government enters into are more often than not carried out by private businesses who do work for profit. Where government makes any profit at all it is for the sole purpose of funding back into itself to keep itself going so they don’t have to tax us more. This still is not business in the proper sense as government’s primary purpose is to protect its citizens rather than produce anything. To do so requires manpower as well as equipment, housing, transportation, etc… all the things an actual business requires but for a different purpose. Government’s ultimate goal makes it a “not for profit business” even though, as I said, it may take in a profit. Government in other words takes money from “We The People” for the sole reason to keep us safe from those who would harm us. It also safeguards the order in society. These are not products but are necessary for an actual business market to exist in freedom where actual products can be produced, and thereby jobs “created.” The more a government taxes it’s citizens the more it can grow; couple this with giving government more expansive powers and we have the recipe for disaster. The reason Socialist and Communist economies collapse is how we might as we allocate more and more of the private sector to government and eventually the consequent restrictions erode human freedom. If that’s what you want then move to another country that has it as it’s basis but this country was founded on Democracy and Free Markets and shall remain that way, hopefully, despite the ignorance of it’s citizens and benefactors.

Ratjaws@aol.com

Visitor 55,
If ever you were to be accused of a crime and go into court I doubt very seriously that they’d consider your statement “but it’s a lie” as legitimate evidence that makes your defense. I also suspect they’d consider name calling childish and recommend you hire competent defense for yourself. Bottom line is you’ve said nothing in defense of your position. Ratjaws@aol.com

Joseph,
I appreciate your reply and the fact you’ve put considerable time and thought into it. First, allow me to point out a key problem with the Lemon Test and the perspective that gave us it. In two statements you’ve made: “do anything that could be seen as promoting one religion above another” and “could be seen as offensive” the phrase “seen as” appears. It reveals an attempt to legislate perception and that is not the purpose of law any more than it would be to control or outlaw thought. All legitimate law has the purpose of either preventing harmful actions or endorsing good. Simply put the government has no business trying to control the actions of one group because of perception. Wrong perception cannot harm any person while bad acts can.

Second, the reason people came to America to from England was to get away from unnecessary control of the religion and churches by the king… or in other words by government. The so-called “Constitutional” wall of separation idea plagurized from Jefferson’s private letter has been blown up all out of proportion and distorted into this idea that government can’t allow freedom of religious expression. On the contrary, if a religious group wants to express themselves, as has been done for years now by Christians, even on government property, there is nothing in any foundational document including the Constitution and Bill of Rights to forbid it. Furthermore if two or three, or ten religious organizations want to express themselves religiously there is nothing to forbid this either. If in fact atheists or persons of anti-religious sentiment want to express themselves with some “holiday,” the idea itself an oxymoron because the term means “holy day,” they have every right to do so. The only stipulation restricting this is that of some conflict with moral principle, and this applies to religious and non-religious expression; for instance we see this in the 1990 case of American Indian’s use of peyote. None of our other rights can trump our right-to-life… as summed up by the term safety. Even Jehovah’s Witnesses “right” to deny blood transfusions to those they are responsible for (their children or other family members) has been called into question. More currently in the news are cases involving Muslim “honor killings” where laws against murder trump any religous expression or “right” that causes harm to another.

Now what the anti-Christmas side is saying is that if Christians ask to express themselves then every other diverse group must do the same, in a skewed definition of equality, and since this is just not possible practically then no one should be allowed. This thinking reduces religious freedom to a sort of government micro-management as demonstrated in the Lemon Test, or at least in the way it is being interpreted today. Also note that a person who works in government and directs others under him/her to set up a religious display, is not the same as a law being written that in effect forces the issue. This latter case could be construed to be “government entanglement” or “promoting one religion above another.”

The point in all this is that under this country’s foundational principles we were given “freedom of religion” and not what it’s morphed into, “freedom from religion.” In fact while you cite a valid concern for the education of our children, where you place the problem is wrong. I suggest that government does not belong in the educational system and there are many reasons for this. Although I agree with much of their reasoning, I am not a Libertarian because they make liberty a primary principle more important than life, which it cannot be, and so skew their conclusions concerning social issues. Nevertheless I believe the department of education, along with other governmental departments like the Federal Reseve, EPA (and heaven forbid we get one to handle Obamacare), etc… all need to be shut down because these are not government’s fundamental purpose. Protecting American property and lives is and this we have failed to do well in recent times because of our preoccupation with social issues and making everyone “equal.” We can give the government additional tasks if we so desire, assuming they are legitimate and we also account for the costs, but if the government cannot do its primary job then we have no business giving it additional responsibility. Some responsibilities are just not appropiate for government at the federal level. I suspect our educational system would work better at the state or lower levels and possibly even better under private control. There is sound argument to the proposition that freemarket can give us better educators if taken with the necessary moral prerequisites. Simply put freemarket cannot be liassez faire and this implies a government with the power of the sword to intervene. Restricting religious expression outside and inside government is not the same as preventing it from setting up a monopoly as King Henry VIII did in England when he took over the Anglican Church and subsequently persecuted thousands of Catholics. That English authorities favored Protestantizing the Church of England isn’t recognized in these arguments against religious expression in government and public. Promotion of one religion over another can be distinguished from free expression even absent multiple expressions at any given time and this seems key to how the issue is misunderstood. So your assertion that if anyone wants to erect a Christmas display they “MUST ensure that SECULAR elements connected with Christmas are involved” is a false presumption. If Orthodox churches desire to display a nativity on their own timeline this still does not distract from the principle involved. Again the government has no business in legislating and ejudicating laws around what is or is not “offensive” to segments of the general populace.

One final consideration, imagine a perfect society where true religious freedom was present. At some point in that society it is possible that a particular religion would come to dominate as has happened throughout history. It’s not hard to understand that this religion would express itself through the government possing the question is this the promotion of one religion over another? No, and I say this is what happened when Christianity was the dominate religious persuation in early America. Today the unnatural obsession with making sure everyone is “equal” distorts and destroys this natural and healthy inclination of society. I say that if atheists could convince the majority of persons in a society that their view of life is better than others then in a free society they deserve to drive the cultural expression bus. I see history as a guage showing us that most people reject the idea there is no spiritual aspect to our world and therefore atheism has never grown in popularity in a free society. In the American experiment the Communist movement of other countries has shown itself as a special interest group that petitions the government for more control over societal structures. Thus we see more regulation against religious expression that all Americans have to eventually come to terms with because expansion of government’s authority and powers ultimately means the loss of individual liberty… including that of Atheists.

Ratjaws@aol.com

Priscilla,
My problem with your commentary and subsequent comments in the Reaction section is they any lack substance. What exactly are you complaining about with all your ambiguous colorful language?

Do you deny that there are groups within our society, not only attempting but succeeding in preventing public expression of Christmas by Christians, on government property as well as in government run schools? Are you blind to the fact that public displays of Christian symbols like the cross are being regulated out of existence by our government while the ability of soldiers to express their faith in the military is being truncated, this even as they die for our freedoms?

This latter instance occurs at the same time as the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy has been discontinued in favor of homosexual expression “coming out of the closet” while in the military. Christian symbols and expression “not Constitutionally protected” are being replaced by pornographic images that were somehow found to protected. Not to mention the prayer taken “…out of places where the Supreme Court says it shouldn’t be,” has been replaced by freedom of abortion (and contraceptives) that was found in the “penumbras, formed by emanations” of that same Constitution in 1965 and again in 1973.

I admit sometimes Gretchen goes off on a tangent in her speaking of the personal intent of those she disagrees with, rather than of principles and actual events; but I have to ask are you not doing the same thing when you call her a hypocrate?

As an American concerned about our country I ask since when did government’s job become one of worrying about “sensitivity” and whether one group is “offending” another? My understanding is our government’s primary purpose is very limited (and enumerated), that is to protect Americans from their enemies, outside and within the country. This explains why we have a standing military and working police force. The Declaration sets this stage when it claims:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”

Contrary to popular belief it’s not the president’s or congress’s purpose to find Americans jobs. In fact our government cannot “create” even a single job since it produces no goods or services, rather consumes them and taxes those who do produce. They have no business interfering in our private social affairs except were there is some moral issue, such as a person’s property or life being threatened (…enter armed robbery and abortion!). What this all comes down to in context of your commentary on Mrs. Carlson is that this “separation of church and state” is a fiction. If there is any wall it exists between the state’s interference in religion in general, but not in the other direction as it is from religion and “church” that we gain our proper moral understanding. The same government liberal and progressives appeal to for protections against religious expression is the one that gave us both the Dred Scott and Roe V. Wade decisions. The first has already been proven wrong while the latter is moving by due process toward final reconciliation, hopefully in my lifetime.

Whether one is religious or not should not interfere with expressing their ideas inside or outside of government and political/public discourse. That is the real point of our Constitutional protection for speech, and of religion, association and economic activity in a market that must be unimpaired by unnecessary government restrictions. More importantly the protection of every person’s life trumps these rights because they become meaningless apart from life. Therefore a government that inverts the order of these protections or makes moral acts illegal and immoral acts protected status (as with legalized abortion and protection of sterile homosexual activity) in effect delegitimizes itself by eradicating the very purpose of government; of the people, by the people, for the people. The Christian faith of Gretchen Carlson you so easily mock is where we get these balanced ideas found in our Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even if this were not true belittling Gretchen’s freedom to express her faith in no way helps you or anyone else maintain your freedom and in fact ultimately can only detract from it’s protection.
Ratjaws@aol.com