New Rule #5

New Rule #5. You must stop using the phrase

"Attack on religion" when what you really mean is

that you hate the concept that  freedom "of"

religion also means freedom "from" religion.

          In today's local newspaper, Kathryn Lopez 

cites laudable deeds in the wake of Hurricane

Sandy and around the world by various religious

charities. The vast bulk of her examples are Catholic

charities, which I get, since she self identifies as a

mainstream Catholic. Then, after a general

comment to the effect that implies that only

Christians act this way, she lauds the solidarity

which Americans seem to generate in the wake of

natural disasters, implying that this is proof that we

need a closer melding of religion (she uses the word

"faith") and government. In a stunning leap of

irrelevance,  she then states that "Vice- presidential

candidate Rep. Paul Ryan once sought Dolan's

(Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of the Diocese

of New York) spiritual guidance on federal

policymaking when wrangling with the federal

budget." From here, she segues into "Faith is

indispensable. It's why the increasingly narrow  view

of religious freedom that the Obama

administration harbors is an issue of historic

import." This rant then returns to the same, tired

old objection to patients rights versus Church's

rights in the health care arena. In her photo, Ms.

Lopez looks to be a normal human, but there is

obviously some sort of rational logic filter implanted

somewhere.  Only one so doctrinaire in outlook that

reason is irrelevant could cling to this discredited

argument.         

          The idea that somehow I as a person of faith 

should be allowed to impose that faith and its

dogmatic beliefs on another is diametrically opposed

to the spirit of Mr. Madison's masterpiece (The

Constitution), Mr. Jefferson's Va. Statute of

religious toleration, and George Washington's letter

to the Hebrew congregation  of Newport, R.I.  These

documents clearly imply  that the individual is,

and should be,  protected by having the religious

views of other thrust or imposed upon them.  In

specifying that health care plans must pay for

certain things prescribed by physicians under that

plan, the Affordable health care Act does not even

hint that any individual  will be forced against their

will to avail themselves of  birth control methods,

abortion, or any medically indicated item which is a

matter of conscience. In the logic employed by those

who think otherwise, the employee may as well

state that any employee using such  devices or

medications is subject to dismissal  since, if not paid

by the employer's medical plan, they must purchase

these things themselves. No one would dream of

sustaining that argument!  In an America where at

least 85% of sexually active Roman Catholic

women acknowledge using some form of birth

control at some time,  there is clearly a point at

which this argument is , simply put, bullshit!  Either

the Church's point of view has become irrelevant to

the vast bulk of parishoners or  the complaint is far

more political that philosophical.   

          There are those in America today, some of

whom have recently run for elected high office,

who would be perfectly happy to see (their)

Christian dogma  thrust down the throat of the

nation. One has only to read Rick Santorum's

pronouncements on birth control and abortion, Paul

Ryan's stance on women's issues including equal

pay,  and everything Pat Robertson and Billy

Graham (in their lucid moments) spew forth from

their thrones to feel this hatred of things different.

These modern day Christian Mullahs would make

Jesus puke.  They rail at Islam, protest California

schools teaching yoga, call one of the Teletubbies

and Sponge Bob  gay (that was the late unlamented

Jerry Falwell of the Moral majority, which was

neither)  while suborning  second class status for

women and minorities.   Don't get me wrong, I think

Militant Islamists are an even greater  danger to the

world. Religious extremism in any form has within it

the seeds of loss of someone's freedom to think,

which is perhaps mankind's greatest gift.  I end with

the words of Christopher Hitchens, whose wit

and insight were lost to us by his too early death.  

"Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a

faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason,

because these are necessary rather than

sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that

contradicts science or outrages reason. We may

differ on many things, but what we respect is free

inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas

for their own sake."  Would that it were always so.