On the Constitution Club website, which is now called the Conservative Citizen, there is an interesting article about Christianity entitled “Left Tries To Make Christianity A Farce And Fails“. I’ve been a critic of the Constitution Club/Conservative Citizen for being neither Conservative, nor particularly well informed, for quite a while, but this post goes above and beyond in a number of ways.
When discussing politics, there is an interesting dichotomy about what is and is not acceptable, and where government is/should be involved. Certainly all political movements are a little hypocritical, this is just part of human nature. The “Tea Party”/”Conservative”/”Religious Right” takes it to a new extreme. This is a grouping that insists on rigid ideological purity, while failing to understand the variance in opinion throughout history, even in the past decades. It is a movement that demands government involvement in one segment of society, while vocally and almost violently opposing it in others. It wants government to enforce their morality, while opposing other’s beliefs. It is a contradiction in terms.
This article is even more interesting.
The article states…
“Comedian” Laura Levites tweeted that she would like to castrate every male conservative Christian she can find.
Ignoring the fact that the term is comedienne for a woman, why is this important? Comedians, or comediennes, push boundaries. Ted Nugent has made a lot of “jokes” that are as unacceptable, but never criticized here. I personally do not care, a washed up rock star is hardly worth mentioning, but he is upheld on this website.
Two corporations owned by Christians argued before the Supreme Court that due to the Freedom of Religion guaranteed by our first amendment, they should not have to pay for certain forms of contraception that are known to kill very early stage babies, as their faith dictates that all human life is sacred and forgoing financing these products is a matter of practicing that religion.
What is interesting about this is the concept that a corporation can practice a religion. This is a very interesting position, but let’s consider the flip side. Protection of the personal liberties of employees goes both ways. If a company is Wiccan (or worse, Muslim), and it is one of the only sources of employment in an area, what would this author argue about employee rights? Would employees who were prohibited from being Christian (their particular form of Christianity, since it really is dependent)?
The most common argument here is that the corporation is being forced to offer something it disagrees with. This is honestly a little stupid. A kosher butcher will not be required to sell non-kosher meat. If I do not want to provide a product, I cannot be forced to sell something. If I offer compensation for service, however, I cannot put dictates on how my employees “spend” that compensation. If my employee makes $X an hour, and decides to spend that on legal pornography, that is acceptable, even if I do not agree with pornography. If I offer health care, I cannot say that that health care must adhere to my personal dictates. The Hobby Lobby case is ultimately a canard, because the regulation is that health care be provided. This, like pay, is a compensation that could very well be used for purposes I disagree with, but much like pay (another compensation) the decision is up to the individual. Hobby Lobby can certainly disagree, but they cannot put stipulations on how compensation is used.
A former president who had his own arguments with the branch of Christianity in which he grew up blamed it and the Catholic Church for all the world’s ills related to poor treatment of women and human trafficking.
Jimmy Carter has an opinion. The author of this piece has another opinion. I have a third. So what?
Today, the Occupier of the Oval Office went to Vatican City to talk to the Bishop of Rome, the man the world knows as Pope Francis, first among equals of the world’s bishops. This pope may be popular, but make no mistake, he hadn’t changed Church teaching on any topic. Can’t, actually, but that’s another story. It’s rumored they talked about religious liberty, abortion, human trafficking.
The author is using “Occupier of the Oval Office” because she cannot field a better argument. The interesting thing about this author and website is the significant inability to field a good argument. In light of this failure, blatant hyperbole is used. The President is, for good or ill, legitimately elected. He was elected in part because of a repudiation of the ideal of this very website, but this is missed. These people exist in vacuum of criticism or even thought. Try to point out the argumentative failings, and you will be immediately banned. No counter thought is allowed, which is precisely why the arguments are so bad, there is no mental muscle exercise.
But to the argument being made…there isn’t one, really. Just a means to insult the President, who has not done a great job, but an actual critique…that would be too hard.
But the thrust here is so amusing. The line…
“But that does not give anyone in this country the right, the justifiable force, to tell another person or group that they MUST follow a law that violates their conscience in that regard.”
Is exactly what it looks like. No one can tell another person what to do, when you are telling a corporation that they need to stop dictating how compensation is spent. When that corporation is telling employees how they can spend their compensation…that is acceptable. This is so ludicrously ironic that is should be in “The Onion” but the author, continuously shielded from challenging thought, does not know nor really care.
The author continues…
“This should not be difficult to understand. After all, these are the same people who support conscientious objectors to war.”
This is again ludicrous. One of the main posters on this board, NebraskaEnergyObserver avoided Vietnam, by his own admission, because he was afraid. How can the author make this statement? Ignorance and hubris mostly.
This is the problem with the farce of “Christianity” as the author defines it. Her conceptions of Christianity are as unChristian as they come, but she will never come outside of her bubble to even interact with the arguments that could turn a tepid and weak faith into a vibrant and wholesome faith.