The Contraception Commandment And The Progressive Religion
By Mercer Tyson
With the notice that religious organizations will be required to pay for birth control, President Obama's most recent Commandment (capitalization is intentional) gave renewed notice that personal and religious freedom are no longer an important issue to him, nor should they be for the rest of America.
Let's be clear: despite left-wing organizations and pundits proliferating volumes of statistics describing how the majority of Catholic women use birth control or why their definition of "women's health" is more important than religious doctrine, the real issue is the invasion of previously protected religious rights -- rights guaranteed by our Constitution -- and what is behind this invasion.
Understand that I am agnostic, and I lean towards being pro-choice on abortion issues. I also lean towards favoring gays on marriage and other social issues. And I am definitely of the opinion that the government spends way too much. Furthermore, one of the few things I believe the government should provide without charge is contraception to anyone who wants it. I think the morning-after pill is a great concept. So, please -- no accusations of religious fervor on my part.
But contraception and women's health are not the issues here. Not in the slightest. In fact, I think it is something of a disservice that religious leaders are calling it as such. No, this is about something much bigger: the Progressive Religion, under the guise of government, is forcing its religious views on everyone else.
Unfortunately, the battle cannot be fought on the real front, because how do you prove to a court that Progressivism is a religion? So, it has to be fought piecemeal on a case-by-case basis. Regrettably, we'll do that.
It's understandable that our constitutional rights are not 100% guaranteed. Sometimes our "rights" conflict with the rights of others, and require amelioration. Of course there is the age-old example: regardless of free speech principles, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when it is not true because of safety reasons. But it is true that our rights are not to be taken away without clear and convincing evidence that the health, safety, or rights of others are at considerable risk.
Which, of course, is certainly not the case with the new Commandment. Women who are financially capable can get contraception wherever they want. Those who are unable to afford it can obtain it from any number of sources without charge -- usually in clinics right in their own neighborhoods. Clearly, the Commandment is unconstitutional.
No, this new Commandment has direct and even more insidious indirect implications. Anyone with a firm grasp on the obvious understands the direct implications -- unnecessary restriction of religious freedom. To order religious institutions to violate their own code of morality is simply disgraceful, and is a full assault on religious freedom. The left is spinning this as a balance of religious freedom versus women's health. Or, actually no. They are calling this simply a case of women's health -- forget the religious freedom aspect.
Less evident to many is the issue of the Administration's (and Democrats in general) apparent lack of enthusiasm with the Constitution, religious freedom in general, and the separation of powers among the three branches of government. The recent Commandment was only possible because ObamaCare gave explicit powers to the executive branch to dictate health care policies and procedures. Remember Nancy Pelosi's famous ObamaCare statement: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." In other words, "Trust us, we are the disciples of God. We know what is best for you."
Worse yet, what was in the bill was only a guideline. We are now finding out the rest: miscellaneous Commandments ordained by the White House. And the liberal sheep are following blindly. And when others chip away at rights we personally find important, we tend to feel justified in chipping away at their rights -- a variation on the "class warfare" argument so exquisitely manipulated by the Obama administration. Pretty soon we are all resentfully on board with no one having any rights at all.
What is behind all this? The new religion -- Progressivism. Government is god and Obama is the prophet. And, as always, the number of starry-eyed followers grows by leaps and bounds when a prophet is a great speaker and charms his audiences with eloquence and promises; and a healthy dose of fear.
No, this isn't ridiculous. It's clear liberal Democrats believe their views are all that are important, to the exclusion of other beliefs. In fact, they don't even acknowledge other beliefs. Seriously. They can't comprehend this recent issue as one of a violation of religious freedom because they follow their doctrine with religious fervor, which by definition denies the validity of other religious beliefs. "What? Are you a heretic? Women's health is important! Your views are petty and unworthy of response!"
I'm steaming mad about this, mostly because seemingly intelligent people are totally oblivious to what is happening. The only explanation for their intellectual blindness? Religious fervor. Only devotion to religious beliefs can so completely blind people to obvious fact.
We need to get Progressivism recognized as what it really is: a religion. Let it bear the legal limitations of other religions. If we can do that, we can legally keep them from forcing their beliefs down our throats. If not, we're headed for a Jonestown finish, only slower and more painful.
Move over Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite and David Koresh. The Big Dog is here and he doesn't like competition. Of course, Koresh, Applewhite, and Jones were content to suppress and destroy their own followers, not the rest of us.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_contraception_commandment_and_the_progressive_religion.html#ixzz1mAxkruib
This guy is right on ... it agrees with what I've said for a long time - Liberal-Progressivism is a religion.
Liberalism or Progressivism is a religion and has a distinct set of moral values and vices, different than most other religions.
--------------------------------
Envy or covetousness is an important moral value for liberal-progressives. It's what they have instead of justice. Pretty much every other religion views envy as a vice.
For liberal-progressives, the rich are objects of hatred. Their wealth is viewed as a moral evil causing suffering on the part of everyone else. Rich people can, though, obtain absolution by advocating liberal pro-government policies and higher taxes. They don't need to actually pay higher taxes themselves or ever intend to (see Kerry and Buffet). Cheating on their taxes is perfectly acceptable (see Rangel, Geithner). Just like Christian salvation by faith, the liberal-progressive rich obtains complete and total absolution from the sin of wealth by the proper faith. No works involved.
--------------------------------------
Denial of the concept of sin as found in other religious traditions is another liberal-progressive moral value. It's not a matter of tolerance of sin or forgiveness for sinners, it's necessary to deny that the traditional sins are even wrong at all.
In fact, the very concept of sin in found in all other religions is considered a moral evil. To liberal-progressives, sin shouldn't be shunned. Sinful acts are just legitimate lifestyle choices and disapproval of sin is itself a moral evil. The greatest sin is believing in and disapproving sin.
[ Consider the judge in the recent same sex marriage case. He declared that moral disapproval is no basis for laws. But it's perfectly clear that he wants the law to be based on his own moral disapproval of those who disagree with him on same sex marraige. ]
They have other moral beliefs that are unrelated to other religious traditions though:
Government is good, private business is bad. After all, private business is driven by the profit motive, the impure desire to become wealthier. Even if a private businessman isn't wealthy, he's still morally polluted because he's trying to get wealthier. On the other hand, government bureaucrats and liberal politicians are viewed as morally virtuous.
---------------------------------------------------
American exceptionalism is different for liberal-progressives. Most Americans believe this:
(From John Winthrop: "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us." to Ronald Reagan: "I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity.")
Liberal-progressives have their own idea of American exceptionalism. They believe America is exceptionally bad. Conceived in sin - irredeemably racist, capitalist and war-mongering from its beginning until the day liberal-progressives can transform it into a thoroughly secularized socialist country.
-----------------------------------------------------
Some ways that liberal-progressivism IS like some other religions:
Some religions have purity laws involving what one eats or wears or comes into contact with. Liberal-progressives have their version of these things. Organic food, vegetarianism, the belief in the uncleanness of genetically engineering and nuclear power and fossil fuels are examples. These are all examples where Liberal-Progressivism's purity injunctions come into play. |
