The Bible and Culture
A One-Stop Shop for All Things Biblical and Christian
Follow Patheos Evangelical:
Colbert is intentionally over the top. That is the point of his humor. That fact that I agree with 95% of everything he says on his show is beside the point!
If there’s one logical fallacy I’d like to see exposed and eradicated, it’s the slippery slope argument. I love Colbert’s take on it!
“Blessed is the person who who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers.”
This is one of Colbert’s more vulgar segments.
Colbert is a funny and intelligent comedian, and he makes some good zingers. However, forcing the Catholic institutions to pay for what their Church doctrine so clearly does not support is unconstitutional, and that is the slippery slope that Colbert so blithely skewers. Personally, I have no problem with contraception, but I defend the Catholic Church’s right to have that as a part of their doctrine.
This mandate has its own own religious agenda – “sexual freedom” at any cost, which turns out to be pretty high…the conscience of the Catholic Church. It also has a huge cost to the American society what with over 40% of children being born out of wedlock, hundreds of thousands of innocent babies aborted annually and the coursening of our culture – and that is with contraception available to anyone who has access to a drugstore. The concern of contraception availability is not the problem. Our behavior is. And frankly, regarding Christian sexual behavior, all I hear from most United Methodist pulpits is crickets and “tolerate everything in the name of love.”
And about the tax $$ received by the Catholic Church. I wonder how many $$ in services this Church provides to the world at large? I remember the tragedy of the Church having to shut down their adoption services in Massachusetts when that state voted in same-sex marriage, and refused to allow the Church a waiver, meaning that they would be forced to place children in the homes of same-sex couples. I admire the Catholic Church for their unambiguous stands to support traditional marriage and life.
Only yesterday a lovely college coed was testifying before Congress that not only should her schooling be free to her (she has a scholarship), her contraceptives should be provided to her by the taxpayers at a cost of about $3000 per year per coed…at least this coed. Abstinence is free to everyone and is 100% effective at preventing STDs and unplanned pregnancies. If someone wants to have sex in the privacy of their bedroom or hotel or backseat, I don’t care…just don’t ask the taxpayer to pay for it. I believe in helping the helpless, not the clueless, to quote another comedian, Dennis Miller.
I think it’s sad that this is really just a front for partisan politics. To my knowledge even fundamentalists aren’t against contraception and they most definitely don’t favor a separation of church and state (prayer in schools, anyone?). It’s like abortion; do conservatives really care about the lives of the unborn? If they did, wouldn’t they argue for caring for those people from cradle to grave? So much of our political discourse is just code for partisan polarity (that’s why Ron Paul is so refreshing!).
Well said, Jennifer. While I also have no issue with using contraceptives; the so-called “morning after pill” is also included in this which should, it seems to me, impact a broader swath of Christian faith.
Well Zman, in my case I am totally pro-life from womb to tomb and beyond. I oppose abortion, capital punishment, war etc. That to me is a consistent life ethic. BW3
He should have skipped the middle and stuck with Santorum on.
Jennifer, I too think that the Catholic Church should have the right to require it’s members to not use contraceptives, but if a Catholic religious order offers hospital services to non-Catholics and hires non-Catholics, then it is a regular employer. That is the issue at stake, otherwise we are left with the insanity of the Senate bill that would allow any employer to cease coverage of any procedure their religion rejects (i.e. blood transfusions if the employer is a Jehovah’s Witness).
I, too, think that there is a materialist religious agenda involving sexual freedom and that the failed sexual revolution has led to many unwanted pregnancies, and to many abortions — but without contraception, we would have seen many more abortions, which is a far greater harm to innocents and to society than contraception.
Contraception has a role that must be acknowledged within families. All the conservative religious arguments seem to be in agreement with Rush Limbaugh in substance, if not in language and that ignores family planning by married couples. It’s as if the “Full Quiver” movement gained control of the Republican debate on contraceptives.
Unless one ascribes to a religious rejection of all forms of artificial or pharmacological contraception as the Catholic laity must in order to be good Catholics, there is no reason to reject contraceptive methods that do not interrupt the implantation of a fertilized egg, but that prevent fertilization in the first place.
After my wife’s miscarriage, we were told she should not get pregnant for six months, so we used contraceptives. Then we stopped and were blessed with a boy who’s only difference is he has Asperger’s. We never used contraceptives again but also never managed a second pregnancy.
I am more troubled by in vitro fertilization’s destruction of fertilized eggs than I am birth control methods that prevent fertilization. The I.U.D. bothers me too as it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.
My problem with Republican politicians, and I used to be a Republican, is that they do little for the born and only appear to care for the unborn. My problem with Democratic politicians is that they care little for the unborn and more for the born. We need a middle ground on this, one that chooses life but recognizes that women and men have a right to plan their families as long as it does not involve the destruction of an unborn child.
“We need a middle ground on this, one that chooses life but recognizes that women and men have a right to plan their families as long as it does not involve the destruction of an unborn child. ”
The sad thing is that 80% of self-identified pro-lifers support contraception, and yet the anti-contraception minority has such a stranglehold on the pro-life movement that they have so far kept the middle ground you’re looking for from forming.
If you’re looking for a pro-life, pro-contraception organization, I am the cofounder of one called All Our Lives.
The fact of the matter is, all hospitals – including Catholic hospitals – receive public funding. This occurs not only through the obvious Medicare and Medicaid payments, but even through the use of public bonding authorities to fund things like construction and improvement programs. This means that we taxpayers are financing religious restrictions on our own health care services. All of us – Catholic and non-Catholic – are paying to have Vatican doctrines deny things like voluntary sterilization, HIV prevention counseling and even simple referrals for birth control.
The problem is, is that the Catholic church is providing contraceptives to their employess but then stating that they do not want to provide it to students. Can you say, “Hypocrisy”?
“However, forcing the Catholic institutions to pay for what their Church doctrine so clearly does not support is unconstitutional,”
So my boss hates blacks, was raised that way and sincerely doesn’t like them. Is his being forced to hire them unconstitutional as well? By your argument it is; and it’s a silly argument isn’t it?
When it comes down to it, the church is nothing more then a political head. They don’t care about kids or anyone else for that matter and love to discriminate. It’s their job basically. Why else would they shut down a business designed to help children get into homes? They would rather send children to SUFFER then to help them find a loving home. It’s a perfect medieval thinking pattern for a medieval religion.
Follow Patheos on