Through the Looking Glass

We all have our own particular views and they are certainly not going to be in step with everyone else's. However, there is a point where a viewpoint departs so far from reality that it does no one any good. Case in point is a recent post on the American Thinker blog titled, 'Fluke and Liberals' Bodyguard of Lies'. It touches on the uproar over the contraceptives debate (it is 2012, right?) and the Congressional testimony of Sandra Fluke. As you probably know by now, she's the Georgetown law student that Rush Limbaugh raked over the coals, on-air, for three straight days a few weeks ago. Picking and choosing his words in such a way as to belittle and insult her in every way he could, including referring to her as a 'slut' and a 'prostitute', among others. I had some warning of the kind of piece it was, but wanted to read it anyway. Either I have an insatiable curiosity for the views of others or I'm a glutton for punishment. Probably a little of both. The American Thinker article was indeed pretty eye opening and my amazement, and irritation if I'm to be honest, began with the second sentence, which summed up the author's bias, misinterpretations and a complete misunderstanding of what a Liberal actually is.

"Because liberals are at war with American society and their true beliefs are repugnant to most Americans, liberals constantly conceal the truth of their beliefs with sweet-sounding lies."

I don't know about you, but my first thought was, "Wow!" There is so much wrong with that one sentence that it's difficult to even know where to start. Most surprising to me is that the author obviously, truly believes this. But it's just so . . . out there. When I look for an example of a fringy, right wing, through the looking glass mind set, this would be exhibit 'A'. I give him credit for stepping off with vim and vigor. None whatsoever for accuracy or critical thinking, but boy does he have the unwavering, absolutist swagger down to a 'T'!

I won't play point, counterpoint with the entire post, though believe me I would dearly love to. To be fair to the author, I give him props for imaginative use of rarely utilized metaphors and historical personalities. I mean, really, when was the last time you read something that called out Nietzsche, Caligula or Quetzalcoatl, much less all of them?! Though, to be a bit critical, these and other historical references felt rather forced. More a way to show how well read he was than to actually illustrate or illuminate his point. As such, you will also find references to Communism, Nazis, Roman Emperors, 'true evil' and other pointless and silly hyperbolic statements.

One of the points that the author harps on incessantly, in his aforementioned wild and historically mismatched way, is that it's wrong to require religiously associated, public institutions to offer insurance coverage to their employees that goes against a religious belief of the institution. Specifically that Catholic hospitals and universities shouldn't have to offer contraception coverage for their employees. This is utter, one dimensional nonsense! It only makes any sense at all if these are closed institutions that hire ONLY devout Catholics. Otherwise it is the employees who are having their rights infringed based on a theological tenant that they may not agree with! Does the author think that every employee of these institutions is required to convert to Catholicism as a requirement for employment? If not, then what gives the employer the right to restrict employee insurance options based on their own moral views? By that logic everyone would be beholden to their employer's moral judgements for their medical coverage.

As far as I'm concerned, and I think this fits with the general Liberal viewpoint, I think everyone should be able to practice their faith and live their lives as they see fit. But your right to do that ends when it infringes on my rights. That's what living together in a democracy is all about. We are all different, with different moral foundations and considerations, but we have to live together. The only way that works in a free society is to set the limit of your faith and moral views at the point where my rights begin. I respect Catholics right to practice their faith and live life based on their beliefs, but that doesn't mean they can enforce those beliefs on anyone else, especially non-Catholics.

Contrary to the authors bizarrely distorted theory about Liberals, they aren't trying to force anyone to sell their soul. They just want to limit your ability to force your morals onto someone else in the guise of religious or personal freedom. And that is what this is all about. The author has made the classic mistake of getting so worked up about what he sees as wrong that he's neglected to step back and consider it objectively. He fails to even glance at the other side of the argument. It's so much easier for him to mount his high horse and whine about how horrible Liberals are for saying a religious organization can't force its secular employees to live by its moral code. Boohoo! I'm afraid he has it backwards. But seeing both sides takes so much more energy and is nowhere near as satisfying as a good, full throated pity party!

The author's whole post, while well written and, forgive the pun, liberally seeded with historic markers, is 180 degrees out of line. To claim Liberals are secret totalitarian monsters at a time when the State and Federal government are replete with conservatives attempting to legislate morality is mind blowing. That's why this post was so tough to read. It was like reading an article from an alternate universe, where everything is reversed. And just like Limbaugh, the author seems to have no idea what Ms. Fluke was even testifying about. She spent the majority of her testimony speaking specifically about the use of birth control pills, not for contraception, but as a medical treatment. Even I know that birth control pills are often prescribed for non-sexual reasons! So this is indeed a women's health issue and not, as some brainless prats have claimed, a matter of too much casual sex. As Ms. Fluke stated in her full testimony:

"This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder."

Despite using Ms. Fluke's name in just about every paragraph, in the end, the author's post is less about the Fluke/Limbaugh controversy than it is a letter of condemnation, denouncing anyone with the slightest progressive leaning. His accusations of intolerance and "liberal faith" are made up out of his fevered imagination. The piece is muddled even more by his obvious confusion between Liberals and the small group of activist Atheists when he starts blathering about such things as opposition to nativity scenes on public land. Something that only a minority of Liberals give any thought to. Then there is the Sharia law nonsense that only reinforces the author's warped thinking. Yes, there are Liberals who are a little 'out there'. Yes there are Liberals who will fight to stop nativity scenes from going up in front of the county courthouse. But the majority of Liberals are happy to let others live their lives as they wish, unless it infringes on someone else's rights. As I've stated, the author's thinking is way out of whack when compared to reality, but I wouldn't go out on a limb and declare that ALL Conservatives are this, or ALL Conservatives are that. There's a great line from the movie Gettysburg that I've always liked and it seems to fit well here. "Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." I'm afraid that's exactly what the author of the American Thinker post is doing, judging 'Liberals', as a group, based on his own highly skewed caricature. Reality, you see, is a bit more complex.

What's Wrong With Prayer?

Actually, there's nothing wrong with prayer, in and of itself. It's a very personal communion between a person and the supreme being(s) one believes in. No, I have no problem with prayer. However, I do have an issue with the seemingly overwhelming desire some people of faith have to proclaim their particular brand of religion to everyone around them.  I was listening to the radio on the way to work last week and heard a quick snippet of a story about a brouhaha in Forsyth County, NC.

Apparently several years ago the county Board of Commissioners began to invite ministers to lead a brief prayer or invocation to 'solemnize' the proceedings. Well, not too long afterward someone attending one of these meetings apparently wasn't thrilled about the invocation of Jesus at a county government meeting.  The ACLU was contacted and legal hijinks ensued. Recently a Federal judge ruled that sectarian prayer be abolished during these meetings. You can imagine how this ruling was greeted by the theologically inclined in Forsyth county.

As I mentioned earlier, prayer is a uniquely personal choice. Not to put to fine a point on it, but one person's solemn invocation is another's act of heresy. What I am most amazed about is that between those who are in favor and those who are not, nobody seems to have considered the blindingly simple solution. A moment of silence. Those who want to pray can do so, silently to themselves. Those who don't can just take this bit of quiet time to clear their mind of the day's events, take a few deep breaths and focus on the coming meeting. Problem solved! This allows any Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Wiccan to pray as they feel is correct and allows those who don't to sit quietly and prepare for the proceedings.

Unfortunately I doubt this common sense solution would ever really solve the issue. Not because it doesn't allow for maximum inclusion with zero exclusion, but because the pro prayer individuals involved will take it as some sort of affront that they can't have a big, overt mass prayer. As if it's their right to subject a captive audience to a Christian worship service. They won't even have considered, before this issue arose, that some people might not want to hear about their version of faith. That those present might not care or may even find it offensive in some way. Proponents will see even my simple proposal as some sort of muffler on their religious freedom. This is, of course, absurd. All that's being muffled is their ability to push their form of faith on every single person present at a secular gathering.

I fully admit that I have issues with those who are particularly vocal about their own religious ideas. I'm not talking about a belief that comes up in conversation, because it can be enlightening to hear various points of view. I'm referring to the invasive evangelical style where a person of faith feels compelled to bring Jesus into every conversation. Or even more irritating, when someone decides to try and save the poor, misguided 'nonbeliever'. There seems to be this idea that freedom of religion grants those of faith, Christians especially,  carte blanche to shoe-horn overt prayer into all sorts of venues. Usually in a very vocal and intrusive manner. This seems normal and correct to them, of course, because they are very open about it and they can't quite embrace the fact that not everyone thinks of God in the same way.  It's a huge blind spot in their thinking. Some denominations seem to even feel it's a duty of some kind to 'save' the unbelievers among them by making a big sales pitch for God. I doubt many of the faith-full ever really stop to ponder how everyone else feels about this. In America, and I'm sure other places as well, there is this assumption that 'everyone' is a Christian. This assumption is blindingly false. We are most certainly not all Christian. Not to mention that some of us have zero interest in being a passive audience to someone else's beliefs. This doesn't mean I expect all signs of faith removed and hidden. It doesn't mean that I am enraged by a pre meal prayer. That would be stupid. What I do object to is the assumption of 'rightness' about squeezing Jesus or God into other's lives.

As I see it, the place for group prayer services is in a Church, Synagogue, Mosque or other house of worship as well as private gatherings composed of those of like faith. Or even one or a few in a quiet moment in the park. There is no place for it in a public, secular gathering and even less in a governmental setting like a local council meeting. These occasions bring groups of people together whose reason for attending is anything but religious. I know many will rise to the bait and point out that prayers are lead in the houses of Congress. So what? Doesn't make it right. This is a traditional holdover from a time when most everyone in a governmental position of power in the US was either a flavor of Christian or a very quiet atheist or agnostic. I suspect that down the road a bit, this bit of tradition will fall away as it's challenged by those members who don't fit into that 'Christian' mold.

The bottom line is that religion in general and prayer specifically is like a private conversation with your deity, and as such, I don't need or want to listen in. I also don't think it's polite to make a big show of your particular form of faith to a captive, and in more than a few cases, uninterested audience. There's also a level of arrogance involved in the assumption that everyone wants to pray to Jesus at the drop of a hat. Remember that old saying about not talking about religion or politics in mixed company? Company doesn't get any more mixed than a public meeting in America! Then there's my favorite phrase, separation of church and state. This certainly applies to a local government setting like this. Lets all just keep in mind that we live in a nation that's made up of all sorts of beliefs, and we'll all get along much better if we play our Faith a little closer to the vest.