"[It] is quite unlawful to demand, defend, or to grant unconditional freedom
of thought, or speech, of writing or worship, as if these were so many
rights given by nature to man."
-Pope Leo XIII-
Face it, we live in a country in which the KKK can adopt "We shall overcome" as a song about their own struggle for freedom, where the unrepentant South can pretend that their secession was about protecting freedom -- and where only a 'genetically inferior Liberal,' as Allen West, Republican candidate for Congress in my district calls me, would mention anything like irony.
So really, I shouldn't be surprised to read in the local paper that the Roman Catholic churches of the Florida's Treasure Coast are hosting a "Fortnight for Freedom," in a pathetic attempt to avoid having to comply with the demand that in return for the tax exempt status they consider their due, they treat secular employees in the way that other employers must do. Perhaps the hope is that while a major political party, fond of asserting nearly absolute personal freedom can get away with saying "Take your government hands off my Medicare," they can get away with campaigning against reproductive rights, the equality of civil rights and other guarantees of a secular Democracy.
Forgive my recurrent mention of irony and my ridicule of organizations that promote freedom only when it suits the need to maintain authority, but if there is one single organization that has campaigned against religious and even secular freedom longer than any other in the Western world, it is the Roman Catholic Church, and please remember that heresy is just another word for religious freedom. We've had nearly 2000 years of genocide, repression, torture, war and the most grizzly executions imaginable resulting from claims to divine authority. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind, as Jefferson wrote in 1776, seems always to have been at odds with the peremptory proclamations of God's enforcers, and the idea that we the people have an innate and inalienable right to liberty and pursuit of happiness that owes nothing to the demands of priests, preachers and shamans is clearly anathema to the Catholic Churches of the Treasure Coast, much to their shame.
The fact is that nearly all American Catholics ignore the ban on birth control that is based on a rather flimsy interpretation of what their God(s) said to a man who never existed in a time long before birth control was an option. This embarrassing little attempt has little support amongst anyone but churchmen (Church women have no vote and are sworn to obedience anyway) and it certainly has nothing to do with our freedom. I hope that some people, even in this stupefyingly religious and resoundingly Republican part of the country, will see through it.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, war is peace, slavery is freedom. Irony? Not a whit of it. Did West call libs "genetically inferior"? That's so rude you'd think il popolo would send him packing in November just for making such a remark.
By the way, we shall see Thursday what the SCOTUS has decided regarding the ACA or "Obamneycare." Will they let the legislation stand? Will they strike down the mandate and let everything else remain? Or will they send it all packing on the grand principle derived from the ancient Roman legal codes and Blackstone, "Obama germinum habet" (Obama has cooties)?
Shame on my forgetful Latin -- I believe I should have used the accusative plural, germina. That's it -- Obama germina habet.
ReplyDeleteFor the plan to work, everyone has to be included, else you have adverse selection -- only sick people will opt in and the healthy will opt out, which is pretty much the status quo. That's why non-medical life insurance is always the most expensive, but Americans have no idea how insurance works and so they compare it to a Ponzi scheme proving they have no idea how those work either. Actually I'd be so close to correct if I insisted Americans have no idea how anything works that I'll make it my official position.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't everything they say about Obama accusative? Or is that accusational. . . I get confused.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteYes, I know what you mean about the mandate issue, but at the same time, if the SCOTUS were to issue a sweeping ruling tossing the entire ACA, they would look hopelessly partisan since that would amount to legislating from the bench: it surely isn't their business to say that if the mandate goes, the rest would be impractical to carry out. That's the job of congress and the president to worry about and come up with alternative plans for, not the Court. The only question I think they have any affair with is whether the supposedly controversial use of the Commerce Clause is constitutional or not. If they insist that it isn't, they could strike down the mandate and say nothing about any of the law's other provisions.