As the mother of young children, I often wonder how I will keep my children safe from moral harm. Please read this article entitled, "Boys, Porn, and Education," which eloquently describes one aspect of the evils of pornography, and feel free to leave comments on the steps you take to keep your children safe from porn in a world where it is easier to find than an ogre in a field. (Instructive: I asked my seven-year-old boy to give me an example of "something that is easy to find." He lives in a world of wonder, so to him, the answer to this question was obviously an ogre - because of its size, naturally! The article speaks more to this point.)
www.crisismagazine.com/2014/boys-porn-education
Monday, November 3, 2014
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Two Peas in a Pod: This Time, the Pope is Just as Wrong as the Physicists!
What is the best way to respectfully disagree with a pope? I guess the best way is to just state the case that, as wise as the pope is, and as much as he knows about faith, compassion, and virtue, it just might be that he’s a little wrong on some things, right? Well, my reaction to the words of Pope Francis yesterday is just that: I respectfully disagree. I have firm footing to stand on… after all, popes have been misinformed about science in the past, right? As long as he’s not speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of Faith or Morals, I am not obliged to take on Faith what he says.
Yesterday, Pope Francis said, “The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it” (you can see more of his comments here). And on this point, the pope is wrong. Let me be more specific: IF there was a Big Bang, then I agree that it would have required a Divine Creator. But to take for granted that a Big Bang must have happened, just because the scientific evidence points to it? A big mistake, and an abrogation of authority.
The laws of physics are powerful: to a physicist, a little information about a projectile flying through the air in a big, swooping parabolic arc allows him to tell you exactly where the projectile was launched from, and at what speed; and allows him to determine where the projectile will land. And he’ll be right every time, because the laws of physics are well-known and very precise.
The physics that determine the scientist’s understanding of the origin of the universe are no different. We observe details about the world around us, apply the well-known physical laws that dictate how the universe behaves, and calculate backwards in time to arrive at the Big Bang… or, similarly, to arrive at the theory of evolution. The laws may be more complex, but the process is identical.
Think again of the simple example of the projectile seen arcing through the sky. What if God used his “magic wand” to create the projectile in mid-flight, and gave it all of the properties (speed, trajectory, etc.) to make the observant scientist conclude a launch point somewhere over on the farside of the hill. If the scientist didn’t see God create the projectile in mid-flight, he would be unpersuadable. He would only believe (the heathen!) that the projectile was fired from the point indicated by his calculations.
You see, scientists have no say over “initial conditions.” If they are not in complete control of the experiment to observe the starting point, then they can only assume that the same rules applied over the entire duration of the “experiment” they are trying to observe, and can only deduce the initial conditions.
But scientists were not paying attention during the origin of the universe. They can only tell us what the evidence indicates. But what we’re talking about is God--you know, the all-powerful Being that created the laws of physics and is not bound by them. So we are talking about a matter of Faith. You must believe that God created the universe - it can’t be proven. If you believe, then no amount of data can tell you how He did it, because He could have established the initial conditions in any manner He saw fit. It turns out that the physicists have to make an awfully big assumption: they assume God chose to be bound by the laws of physics that He created. And don't the Faithful have evidence that He does not bind Himself to these laws? If God performs miracles, then it follows that He chooses to violate His own physical laws from time to time.
At this point, I’d like to make clear what I’m NOT saying: I’m not saying that the Big Bang could not have happened. It could have. God could have chosen to create the universe through a Big Bang. What I am saying is that scientists have no business telling us how the universe started; they are not philosophers or theologians (as much as they might like to think that they are). The role of science is to tell us what the evidence and theories point toward. Our theologians and philosophers should interpret the scientific evidence together with Revealed Truth and are singularly empowered to draw conclusions; but instead, we see them bowing to the supposed final authority of science. And let's contemplate the possibility that it's not our place to know with certainty our origins; after all, it is hubris indeed to think that God can be fully understood.
The pope should reassert his authority and help us understand the most likely way that God might have created the universe; but he should not begin his speech by foolishly conceding that scientific assertions are undoubtedly right. After all, the only group wrong about physics more than the Church is… physicists!
Yesterday, Pope Francis said, “The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it” (you can see more of his comments here). And on this point, the pope is wrong. Let me be more specific: IF there was a Big Bang, then I agree that it would have required a Divine Creator. But to take for granted that a Big Bang must have happened, just because the scientific evidence points to it? A big mistake, and an abrogation of authority.
The laws of physics are powerful: to a physicist, a little information about a projectile flying through the air in a big, swooping parabolic arc allows him to tell you exactly where the projectile was launched from, and at what speed; and allows him to determine where the projectile will land. And he’ll be right every time, because the laws of physics are well-known and very precise.
The physics that determine the scientist’s understanding of the origin of the universe are no different. We observe details about the world around us, apply the well-known physical laws that dictate how the universe behaves, and calculate backwards in time to arrive at the Big Bang… or, similarly, to arrive at the theory of evolution. The laws may be more complex, but the process is identical.
Think again of the simple example of the projectile seen arcing through the sky. What if God used his “magic wand” to create the projectile in mid-flight, and gave it all of the properties (speed, trajectory, etc.) to make the observant scientist conclude a launch point somewhere over on the farside of the hill. If the scientist didn’t see God create the projectile in mid-flight, he would be unpersuadable. He would only believe (the heathen!) that the projectile was fired from the point indicated by his calculations.
You see, scientists have no say over “initial conditions.” If they are not in complete control of the experiment to observe the starting point, then they can only assume that the same rules applied over the entire duration of the “experiment” they are trying to observe, and can only deduce the initial conditions.
But scientists were not paying attention during the origin of the universe. They can only tell us what the evidence indicates. But what we’re talking about is God--you know, the all-powerful Being that created the laws of physics and is not bound by them. So we are talking about a matter of Faith. You must believe that God created the universe - it can’t be proven. If you believe, then no amount of data can tell you how He did it, because He could have established the initial conditions in any manner He saw fit. It turns out that the physicists have to make an awfully big assumption: they assume God chose to be bound by the laws of physics that He created. And don't the Faithful have evidence that He does not bind Himself to these laws? If God performs miracles, then it follows that He chooses to violate His own physical laws from time to time.
At this point, I’d like to make clear what I’m NOT saying: I’m not saying that the Big Bang could not have happened. It could have. God could have chosen to create the universe through a Big Bang. What I am saying is that scientists have no business telling us how the universe started; they are not philosophers or theologians (as much as they might like to think that they are). The role of science is to tell us what the evidence and theories point toward. Our theologians and philosophers should interpret the scientific evidence together with Revealed Truth and are singularly empowered to draw conclusions; but instead, we see them bowing to the supposed final authority of science. And let's contemplate the possibility that it's not our place to know with certainty our origins; after all, it is hubris indeed to think that God can be fully understood.
The pope should reassert his authority and help us understand the most likely way that God might have created the universe; but he should not begin his speech by foolishly conceding that scientific assertions are undoubtedly right. After all, the only group wrong about physics more than the Church is… physicists!
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Art for Art's Sake: But What Is "Art"?
J+M+J
For some time now, I've read, with much interest, the blog posts of conservative writer Matt Walsh. The other day, while perusing some of his older pieces, I came across a commentary on popular entertainment. His words struck a chord in my traditionalist, right-wing heart, so naturally I shared the post on my Facebook feed, only to discover that (surprise, surprise!) there exist others that do not share the mutual opinion Matt Walsh and I hold concerning the immoral and, largely, unintelligent fare of popular entertainment (specifically within the musical industry, but obviously extending into other artistic arenas).
I think it is universally accepted that, as human beings, we are highly influenced by the artistic surroundings in which we immerse ourselves and that art, in ways that often surpass the influence of a lecture or instructive text, through its subtlety, has a profound ability to shape our thoughts, perceptions, ideas, and even persons. For that reason, it is vitally important, if we care not only for ourselves, but for the whole of society, that we consider the weight of the songs to which we listen (especially given the ubiquitous presence of the i-Pod these days) or the movies we frequent or the books we absorb. Our art is a reflection of ourselves, and sometimes that includes the brutal or difficult truths of human nature, but while we can always acknowledge the depraved or disordered aspects of human existence, we should always be seeking to correct these evils, instead lauding that which is best in humanity.
When considering the lyrics of popular music, such as those Beyonce songs detailed in Walsh's original article, our concern is not exclusively over the sexually explicit nature of the lyric content, but also that the songs themselves are vapid, degrading (to humans in general, but to women specifically), and cliche. This isn't to suggest that all art be saccharine - filled with unrealistic, fanciful visions of unicorns and rainbows - but that genuine art should amaze us with its grandeur and majesty, displaying the very best of humanity and pointing toward the truth.
Art is supposed to evoke reflection (whether joyful or sorrowful), provide beauty (even if that beauty is enveloped in sadness or tragedy), and display the truth in an attempt to elevate humanity to the higher aims of goodness, respect, decency, honor, courage, empathy, etc. But, let's be honest, how is singing about oral sex in a limo accomplishing this? It's not championing truth, it's not commenting on social injustice, it's not relating a meaningful story, it's not instructing listeners/viewers...it's simply talking about sexuality and human beings in the meanest, coarsest, most vulgar, and most cavalier of ways, without a hint of subtlety. And the monotony and repetition in "discussing" sex, drugs, etc. renders it dull and unimaginative, failing to offer a glint of true inspiration to its audience. Aristotle said, “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” Somehow, I don't think Beyonce's blow by blow "account" of a salacious encounter exudes "inward significance." It's like the same junk recycled in the same unoriginal way, over and over and over again, yet somehow, most Americans just can't get enough. And while an individual can obviously have different artistic tastes (different types of musical or literature genres, various types of architecture, etc. certainly appeal to different people), the concept of art itself - its overall aim or intent - should be universal. If we hold art to certain standards, then, naturally, the mere claim that something is "art" does not make it so.
Interestingly though, many insist that there is no universal standard for what constitutes art - that there's a certain degree of sophistication in Beyonce's hyper-sexualized musical offerings, though it's undoubtedly not everyone's "cup of tea," and that it is unduly rigid and wholly inaccurate to suggest that the content is highly, well, stupid. It's been proposed to me that the utilization of Monica Lewinsky's name as a verb somehow elevates a song about having sex in the back of a limousine to some standard of intelligence or insight. Now, I am willing to concede that the lyrics may be sexually "astute," however, when it comes to identifying these words as substantive, meaningful, insightful, or beautiful (even tragically beautiful), I find it absolutely impossible to do so. This music, besides being unbelievably immoral and grossly depraved, is indeed stupid, by which I mean: "tediously dull, especially due to a lack or meaning or sense" (incidentally, further definitions of "stupid" include "inane; annoying or irritating; troublesome" - all of which characterize this type of popular music, in my humble opinion) and the tired, monotonous focus on sex in these songs is just that - devoid of meaning and tedious in its sexual obsession. Therefore, despite the "original" use of a proper noun as a verb, the whole song (and others like it) remains bleakly uninsightful and not terribly *thought*-provoking (though such songs are certainly provocative). Again, simply because something is "original" doesn't qualify it as art: I believe we could all recall various things we have seen throughout our lives which were undeniably "original," yet undoubtedly horrible in their grotesqueness. Any one can label anything as art - regardless of the talent (or lack thereof) required to produce said work - but the real consideration is: does this song (painting, film, etc.) offer genuine artistic insight, beauty, or meaning?
With all my grandiose visions of what art should be, a natural refutation to my arguments is that my "personal" artistic scope is too limited: who am I to impose my beliefs on the world (i.e. the classic contemporary objection to any quantitative and objective moral, ethical, or social claims)? It is true: I, in the great scheme of human history, am of considerably little importance and my personal opinions on any number of issues are of very small regard. However, the definition I provide is not one of my own making: it has been the general consensus for hundreds of years in a variety of societies throughout different time periods that art should offer beauty, enchantment, wonder, insight, meaning, and consideration in the hearts and minds of those it reaches, regardless of the medium. It should champion the good in humanity, criticize the flawed, condemn the depraved, and seek out the truth. It should offer meaning, substance, and yes, entertainment, but not at the complete expense of the other considerations.
Similarly, I recoil at this notion of "different strokes for different folks" as a justification for condemning objective criticism. Certainly, one may not agree with the classical definition of art, but, by dismissing any but the very broadest of definitions, aren't we really suggesting that human beings - despite our unique ability to intelligently discern - are not capable of crafting thoughtful, articulate, and reasonable arguments for judging the nature or content of a given practice, decision, etc.? Is it really so wrong to classify a song with lewd, monotonous sexual lyrics (or the type of "music" it represents in general) as disordered, lacking meaning, and, well, even destructive: destructive to our souls, because of the immorality it upholds; destructive to our relationships, because of the cavalier attitude it encourages toward sexual intimacy; destructive to our bodily and mental health, because it conditions us to settle for the basest aspects of our nature - to give in to animalistic inclination without involving reason; and destructive to our society at large, because it encourages unbridled sexual license (and we all know human beings desire sex enough without further encouragement). Isn't the distinction between man and beast (namely, humanity's intellect) something we should revere and utilize with care? When did making careful judgments become so unbelievably contentious and taboo?
As human beings, we have been gifted with great potential: reasoning faculties, compassionate spirits, and artistic talents, to name some of our most praiseworthy attributes. To offer anything less than our best, whether that be in creating astounding, inspiring artwork, living with meaning, purpose, and conviction, or attempting to correct the ills we witness around us (or within us), is ultimately to cheat ourselves and humanity of so much. So, while a mere song or book may seem innocuous enough, anyone who has heard the poetic words of Shakespeare, or read the vivid descriptions of Dante, or gazed in awe at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, recognizes art's ability to shape our futures, our minds, our hearts, and our souls.
M.K.
For some time now, I've read, with much interest, the blog posts of conservative writer Matt Walsh. The other day, while perusing some of his older pieces, I came across a commentary on popular entertainment. His words struck a chord in my traditionalist, right-wing heart, so naturally I shared the post on my Facebook feed, only to discover that (surprise, surprise!) there exist others that do not share the mutual opinion Matt Walsh and I hold concerning the immoral and, largely, unintelligent fare of popular entertainment (specifically within the musical industry, but obviously extending into other artistic arenas).
I think it is universally accepted that, as human beings, we are highly influenced by the artistic surroundings in which we immerse ourselves and that art, in ways that often surpass the influence of a lecture or instructive text, through its subtlety, has a profound ability to shape our thoughts, perceptions, ideas, and even persons. For that reason, it is vitally important, if we care not only for ourselves, but for the whole of society, that we consider the weight of the songs to which we listen (especially given the ubiquitous presence of the i-Pod these days) or the movies we frequent or the books we absorb. Our art is a reflection of ourselves, and sometimes that includes the brutal or difficult truths of human nature, but while we can always acknowledge the depraved or disordered aspects of human existence, we should always be seeking to correct these evils, instead lauding that which is best in humanity.
When considering the lyrics of popular music, such as those Beyonce songs detailed in Walsh's original article, our concern is not exclusively over the sexually explicit nature of the lyric content, but also that the songs themselves are vapid, degrading (to humans in general, but to women specifically), and cliche. This isn't to suggest that all art be saccharine - filled with unrealistic, fanciful visions of unicorns and rainbows - but that genuine art should amaze us with its grandeur and majesty, displaying the very best of humanity and pointing toward the truth.
Art is supposed to evoke reflection (whether joyful or sorrowful), provide beauty (even if that beauty is enveloped in sadness or tragedy), and display the truth in an attempt to elevate humanity to the higher aims of goodness, respect, decency, honor, courage, empathy, etc. But, let's be honest, how is singing about oral sex in a limo accomplishing this? It's not championing truth, it's not commenting on social injustice, it's not relating a meaningful story, it's not instructing listeners/viewers...it's simply talking about sexuality and human beings in the meanest, coarsest, most vulgar, and most cavalier of ways, without a hint of subtlety. And the monotony and repetition in "discussing" sex, drugs, etc. renders it dull and unimaginative, failing to offer a glint of true inspiration to its audience. Aristotle said, “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” Somehow, I don't think Beyonce's blow by blow "account" of a salacious encounter exudes "inward significance." It's like the same junk recycled in the same unoriginal way, over and over and over again, yet somehow, most Americans just can't get enough. And while an individual can obviously have different artistic tastes (different types of musical or literature genres, various types of architecture, etc. certainly appeal to different people), the concept of art itself - its overall aim or intent - should be universal. If we hold art to certain standards, then, naturally, the mere claim that something is "art" does not make it so.
Interestingly though, many insist that there is no universal standard for what constitutes art - that there's a certain degree of sophistication in Beyonce's hyper-sexualized musical offerings, though it's undoubtedly not everyone's "cup of tea," and that it is unduly rigid and wholly inaccurate to suggest that the content is highly, well, stupid. It's been proposed to me that the utilization of Monica Lewinsky's name as a verb somehow elevates a song about having sex in the back of a limousine to some standard of intelligence or insight. Now, I am willing to concede that the lyrics may be sexually "astute," however, when it comes to identifying these words as substantive, meaningful, insightful, or beautiful (even tragically beautiful), I find it absolutely impossible to do so. This music, besides being unbelievably immoral and grossly depraved, is indeed stupid, by which I mean: "tediously dull, especially due to a lack or meaning or sense" (incidentally, further definitions of "stupid" include "inane; annoying or irritating; troublesome" - all of which characterize this type of popular music, in my humble opinion) and the tired, monotonous focus on sex in these songs is just that - devoid of meaning and tedious in its sexual obsession. Therefore, despite the "original" use of a proper noun as a verb, the whole song (and others like it) remains bleakly uninsightful and not terribly *thought*-provoking (though such songs are certainly provocative). Again, simply because something is "original" doesn't qualify it as art: I believe we could all recall various things we have seen throughout our lives which were undeniably "original," yet undoubtedly horrible in their grotesqueness. Any one can label anything as art - regardless of the talent (or lack thereof) required to produce said work - but the real consideration is: does this song (painting, film, etc.) offer genuine artistic insight, beauty, or meaning?
With all my grandiose visions of what art should be, a natural refutation to my arguments is that my "personal" artistic scope is too limited: who am I to impose my beliefs on the world (i.e. the classic contemporary objection to any quantitative and objective moral, ethical, or social claims)? It is true: I, in the great scheme of human history, am of considerably little importance and my personal opinions on any number of issues are of very small regard. However, the definition I provide is not one of my own making: it has been the general consensus for hundreds of years in a variety of societies throughout different time periods that art should offer beauty, enchantment, wonder, insight, meaning, and consideration in the hearts and minds of those it reaches, regardless of the medium. It should champion the good in humanity, criticize the flawed, condemn the depraved, and seek out the truth. It should offer meaning, substance, and yes, entertainment, but not at the complete expense of the other considerations.
Similarly, I recoil at this notion of "different strokes for different folks" as a justification for condemning objective criticism. Certainly, one may not agree with the classical definition of art, but, by dismissing any but the very broadest of definitions, aren't we really suggesting that human beings - despite our unique ability to intelligently discern - are not capable of crafting thoughtful, articulate, and reasonable arguments for judging the nature or content of a given practice, decision, etc.? Is it really so wrong to classify a song with lewd, monotonous sexual lyrics (or the type of "music" it represents in general) as disordered, lacking meaning, and, well, even destructive: destructive to our souls, because of the immorality it upholds; destructive to our relationships, because of the cavalier attitude it encourages toward sexual intimacy; destructive to our bodily and mental health, because it conditions us to settle for the basest aspects of our nature - to give in to animalistic inclination without involving reason; and destructive to our society at large, because it encourages unbridled sexual license (and we all know human beings desire sex enough without further encouragement). Isn't the distinction between man and beast (namely, humanity's intellect) something we should revere and utilize with care? When did making careful judgments become so unbelievably contentious and taboo?
As human beings, we have been gifted with great potential: reasoning faculties, compassionate spirits, and artistic talents, to name some of our most praiseworthy attributes. To offer anything less than our best, whether that be in creating astounding, inspiring artwork, living with meaning, purpose, and conviction, or attempting to correct the ills we witness around us (or within us), is ultimately to cheat ourselves and humanity of so much. So, while a mere song or book may seem innocuous enough, anyone who has heard the poetic words of Shakespeare, or read the vivid descriptions of Dante, or gazed in awe at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, recognizes art's ability to shape our futures, our minds, our hearts, and our souls.
M.K.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Upholding Personal Choice by Condemning Personal Choice
J+M+J
As the whole Hobby Lobby contraception coverage controversy continues to boil over with a fury, I can't help but marvel at the inconsistencies presented by dissenters of the Supreme Court's decision. In most liberal circles, the general consensus is that this "catastrophic" outcome is no less than an assault on womanhood, the impoverished, and personal choice; oddly, their conviction that this whole ordeal will undoubtedly bring about near-apocalyptic consequences for the future of American women and the collective sexual freedom of all, sounds quite reminiscent of the dire predictions conservatives offered when the Affordable Care Act was initially enacted - warnings progressives dismissed as hyperbolic nonsense. Articles, like this one from Slate, continue to flood the internet, presenting a host of concerns over the initial decision and subsequent judicial developments from the High Court. Are these concerns misplaced? Or, even worse, is the liberal contingent's insistence that all organizations and corporations provide a veritable host of birth control - including those that act as abortifacients at least some of the time - actually inflicting more harm than good on those they hope to help, namely, women and the poor?
In a society where women are told they are invincible, unconquerable, tenacious, and talented, it's a bit ironic that they are also reminded with vigor that their success, whether professional or personal, is intrinsically linked to a little pill. Never, in all my years, have I ever heard a similar statement made regarding the success of men, yet women seem utterly dependent on medical intervention to curb a naturally functioning aspect of their bodies and, subsequently, make all their dreams come true. In other words: women need to turn off their biological "femininity" to be fully accomplished. Cyndi Lauper, music icon and women's rights advocate, in her open letter to the Daily Beast, even equated the Pill with "allowing [women] to...determine [their] own destiny."
"I am woman, hear me roar (that is, only if I'm on the appropriate birth control regime - otherwise, I'm a floundering mess)."
What does this message tell our young girls about the innate abilities of women? That we are only capable of greatness if we negate a primary aspect of our natural, biological make-up? That the possibility of bearing or rearing a child is the death knell for accomplishment? While it would be naive to suggest that having a child never presents new challenges to the life of any parent - whether man or woman - it would also be short-changing women to assert that children so hamper one's ambitions as to deem them near impossible.
And to add insult to sexist injury, this mentality is expounded upon in the equally popular sentiment which asserts that "having a uterus" naturally predisposes a female both to support contraception and (inherently) to sanction its mandated purchase. When lamenting the Supreme Court's emergency temporary injunction (afforded to companies and organizations maintaining a religious objection to the approval of third parties in providing birth control), Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West (in the aforementioned Slate piece), suggest that it was a specific physical characteristic that prompted the Supreme Court's dissenting justices to disapprove of the decision: a uterus. Undoubtedly, of course, it was the three dissenting justices' anatomy that caused them to disavow the decision (it couldn't possibly have been their liberal ideology, right?). Similarly, it's only natural that every one of the justices who ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor at the initial decision was male - because men are absolutely opposed to birth control, correct? Yet, despite all the sexist rhetoric, Planned Parenthood provides statistics that the majority of men not only embrace birth control, but furthermore, believe it should be fully covered by insurance with absolutely no out-of-pocket costs. Hmm. I wonder why men would be interested in this, too? Could it be that men (albeit, in a different capacity) are also impacted by sexual activity, fertility, and possible procreation? When we relegate the opinions of individuals, particularly women, to stereotypical thought, are we really championing personal choice, conscientious discernment, and individualism? Or are we instead conditioning young girls and women to adopt only those beliefs popular society thinks are appropriate for females to hold?
Another group "egregiously" assaulted by the Court's decision is, of course, the poor. Opponents of the decision argue that the undue burden placed on poverty-stricken employees by not having an exhaustive list of birth control universally covered by employers would simply be too much to bear. Let us consider for the moment the real source of medicine's astronomical prices; that is, our society's unbelievable dependence upon this third party payment system: a system which, ironically, was thrust upon us through government regulation decades ago and has created a systemic problem, in which people no longer weigh the "value" of a given drug, procedure, or visit with their own monetary investment, because insurance is "paying the bill." If people had to actually draw their own cash out of their pockets to make health care purchases, they would most certainly think more critically about how their money is spent on health and, subsequently, medical providers would be forced to lower their prices, since no one would be willing to pay the bills that insurance currently covers. It's common sense. Unfortunately, however, we would rather have the satisfaction of having "someone else" foot the bill for our antibiotics, routine check-ups, or birth control than to implement change that would really reduce the cost of medical care. Thus, we see that people aren't complaining about the system...instead they are complaining about another person's unwillingness to compromise his deeply seated convictions to subsidize things he finds morally reprehensible.
So, instead of advocating for real, tangible change in altering the course of medicine in our country to benefit us all (but particularly, the poor), liberal organizations, such as The National Organization for Women, are instead channeling their energies in attacking...the Little Sisters of the Poor?? Yes, liberal advocates for impoverished women are black-labeling groups of nuns who dedicate their lives to serving the poverty-stricken, the elderly, and the dying. It makes perfect sense: attempt to shut down, thwart, or cripple organizations and people seeking to improve the lives of those around them, whether those individuals be religious sisters living in poverty themselves to better serve others, or the leaders of companies like Hobby Lobby, which pays its employees nearly double the national minimum and provides flexible hours, or Eden Foods, a company committed to healthy living and organic, sustainable farming (which, when you consider the birth control issue from a "health" perspective, is it any surprise that a company dedicated to organic living would reject paying for class one carcinogens?). What the liberal mentality seems to be forgetting here is that many of these organizations would rather, however reluctantly, cease to operate than reject their strongly held ethical positions. So, in their zeal to have the birth control of all women paid for by people other than then the women themselves (and their spouses, partners, etc.), liberal advocates just might be shooting themselves in the proverbial foot by literally forcing these organizations to cease the great services they provide in order to secure their convictions.
It is also important to remember amid all the emotionally-charged rhetoric, that the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) and similar corporate heads cannot making anyone "forego" anything. For one thing, employees enter into voluntary employment contracts with their employer and are free to go elsewhere if they are dissatisfied with any aspect of their current employment (we are not discussing involuntary servitude here). Secondly, people can buy practically anything they want for themselves. Understandably, there will always exist certain goods that people may want (or even things they might need, or feel they need) which are also cost prohibitive, but unfortunately, that's life. If one cannot afford something he feels is necessary, life adjustments must be made. It seems undeniable that comfortable shelter, reliable transportation, and a whole host of other things are considered vital in American culture - and these are even good, wonderful, beneficial things to promote well-being - but even so, they aren't guaranteed to any of us. As adults, we all need to understand that we have choices to make about nearly every aspect of life: financial decisions, personal decisions, career decisions, etc. and we must face the challenges and realities of life, even when it is unpleasant or difficult. Sometimes, we have to trudge along through inconveniences or even outright hardships, but that's human existence. It isn't our employer's responsibility to safeguard us from every decision we personally make, but it is our responsibility to take ownership of our personal liberty and the consequences of our decisions, great and small.
Finally, the irony of "championing personal choice" by forcibly mandating others to act against, well, against their "personal choice," is comical to epic degrees (but somehow the hilarity seems to be lost on many). Since this is not an issue of outlawing birth control, women will still have other options for obtaining it (like, um, paying for it on their own, perhaps?), but employers will completely forfeit their own personal choice by surrendering their right to object to financing those things they find morally reprehensible. It seems, however, that certain choices just aren't as important as others. For example, it would appear, given popular consensus on the matter, that the physical needs, desires, or choices of one individual are inherently more valuable than the spiritual and ethical considerations of another. Yet, when we think beyond our personal inclinations, why should one's desire (i.e. "choice") to engage in an active sex life usurp another individual's commitment to oppose the ending of a child's life (however developmentally small that human being may be)? Because, despite what the media tells you, this is the crux of the matter: it's not a war on women, it's not mere religiosity, but rather, it's a question of ethics.
The ironies, the inconsistencies, and the improbabilities of the popular arguments against the Hobby Lobby decision are enough to make one's head spin, but one can only hope that after greater reflection we can all recognize the hypocrisy of forcing others to act against their carefully formulated convictions to uphold some twisted (and extremely limited) view of "personal choice." And with all that stands to be lost by compelling employers to act against their organization's values, one has to wonder: who really has it out for the American people?
M.K.
As the whole Hobby Lobby contraception coverage controversy continues to boil over with a fury, I can't help but marvel at the inconsistencies presented by dissenters of the Supreme Court's decision. In most liberal circles, the general consensus is that this "catastrophic" outcome is no less than an assault on womanhood, the impoverished, and personal choice; oddly, their conviction that this whole ordeal will undoubtedly bring about near-apocalyptic consequences for the future of American women and the collective sexual freedom of all, sounds quite reminiscent of the dire predictions conservatives offered when the Affordable Care Act was initially enacted - warnings progressives dismissed as hyperbolic nonsense. Articles, like this one from Slate, continue to flood the internet, presenting a host of concerns over the initial decision and subsequent judicial developments from the High Court. Are these concerns misplaced? Or, even worse, is the liberal contingent's insistence that all organizations and corporations provide a veritable host of birth control - including those that act as abortifacients at least some of the time - actually inflicting more harm than good on those they hope to help, namely, women and the poor?
In a society where women are told they are invincible, unconquerable, tenacious, and talented, it's a bit ironic that they are also reminded with vigor that their success, whether professional or personal, is intrinsically linked to a little pill. Never, in all my years, have I ever heard a similar statement made regarding the success of men, yet women seem utterly dependent on medical intervention to curb a naturally functioning aspect of their bodies and, subsequently, make all their dreams come true. In other words: women need to turn off their biological "femininity" to be fully accomplished. Cyndi Lauper, music icon and women's rights advocate, in her open letter to the Daily Beast, even equated the Pill with "allowing [women] to...determine [their] own destiny."
"I am woman, hear me roar (that is, only if I'm on the appropriate birth control regime - otherwise, I'm a floundering mess)."
What does this message tell our young girls about the innate abilities of women? That we are only capable of greatness if we negate a primary aspect of our natural, biological make-up? That the possibility of bearing or rearing a child is the death knell for accomplishment? While it would be naive to suggest that having a child never presents new challenges to the life of any parent - whether man or woman - it would also be short-changing women to assert that children so hamper one's ambitions as to deem them near impossible.
And to add insult to sexist injury, this mentality is expounded upon in the equally popular sentiment which asserts that "having a uterus" naturally predisposes a female both to support contraception and (inherently) to sanction its mandated purchase. When lamenting the Supreme Court's emergency temporary injunction (afforded to companies and organizations maintaining a religious objection to the approval of third parties in providing birth control), Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West (in the aforementioned Slate piece), suggest that it was a specific physical characteristic that prompted the Supreme Court's dissenting justices to disapprove of the decision: a uterus. Undoubtedly, of course, it was the three dissenting justices' anatomy that caused them to disavow the decision (it couldn't possibly have been their liberal ideology, right?). Similarly, it's only natural that every one of the justices who ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor at the initial decision was male - because men are absolutely opposed to birth control, correct? Yet, despite all the sexist rhetoric, Planned Parenthood provides statistics that the majority of men not only embrace birth control, but furthermore, believe it should be fully covered by insurance with absolutely no out-of-pocket costs. Hmm. I wonder why men would be interested in this, too? Could it be that men (albeit, in a different capacity) are also impacted by sexual activity, fertility, and possible procreation? When we relegate the opinions of individuals, particularly women, to stereotypical thought, are we really championing personal choice, conscientious discernment, and individualism? Or are we instead conditioning young girls and women to adopt only those beliefs popular society thinks are appropriate for females to hold?
Another group "egregiously" assaulted by the Court's decision is, of course, the poor. Opponents of the decision argue that the undue burden placed on poverty-stricken employees by not having an exhaustive list of birth control universally covered by employers would simply be too much to bear. Let us consider for the moment the real source of medicine's astronomical prices; that is, our society's unbelievable dependence upon this third party payment system: a system which, ironically, was thrust upon us through government regulation decades ago and has created a systemic problem, in which people no longer weigh the "value" of a given drug, procedure, or visit with their own monetary investment, because insurance is "paying the bill." If people had to actually draw their own cash out of their pockets to make health care purchases, they would most certainly think more critically about how their money is spent on health and, subsequently, medical providers would be forced to lower their prices, since no one would be willing to pay the bills that insurance currently covers. It's common sense. Unfortunately, however, we would rather have the satisfaction of having "someone else" foot the bill for our antibiotics, routine check-ups, or birth control than to implement change that would really reduce the cost of medical care. Thus, we see that people aren't complaining about the system...instead they are complaining about another person's unwillingness to compromise his deeply seated convictions to subsidize things he finds morally reprehensible.
So, instead of advocating for real, tangible change in altering the course of medicine in our country to benefit us all (but particularly, the poor), liberal organizations, such as The National Organization for Women, are instead channeling their energies in attacking...the Little Sisters of the Poor?? Yes, liberal advocates for impoverished women are black-labeling groups of nuns who dedicate their lives to serving the poverty-stricken, the elderly, and the dying. It makes perfect sense: attempt to shut down, thwart, or cripple organizations and people seeking to improve the lives of those around them, whether those individuals be religious sisters living in poverty themselves to better serve others, or the leaders of companies like Hobby Lobby, which pays its employees nearly double the national minimum and provides flexible hours, or Eden Foods, a company committed to healthy living and organic, sustainable farming (which, when you consider the birth control issue from a "health" perspective, is it any surprise that a company dedicated to organic living would reject paying for class one carcinogens?). What the liberal mentality seems to be forgetting here is that many of these organizations would rather, however reluctantly, cease to operate than reject their strongly held ethical positions. So, in their zeal to have the birth control of all women paid for by people other than then the women themselves (and their spouses, partners, etc.), liberal advocates just might be shooting themselves in the proverbial foot by literally forcing these organizations to cease the great services they provide in order to secure their convictions.
It is also important to remember amid all the emotionally-charged rhetoric, that the Green family (owners of Hobby Lobby) and similar corporate heads cannot making anyone "forego" anything. For one thing, employees enter into voluntary employment contracts with their employer and are free to go elsewhere if they are dissatisfied with any aspect of their current employment (we are not discussing involuntary servitude here). Secondly, people can buy practically anything they want for themselves. Understandably, there will always exist certain goods that people may want (or even things they might need, or feel they need) which are also cost prohibitive, but unfortunately, that's life. If one cannot afford something he feels is necessary, life adjustments must be made. It seems undeniable that comfortable shelter, reliable transportation, and a whole host of other things are considered vital in American culture - and these are even good, wonderful, beneficial things to promote well-being - but even so, they aren't guaranteed to any of us. As adults, we all need to understand that we have choices to make about nearly every aspect of life: financial decisions, personal decisions, career decisions, etc. and we must face the challenges and realities of life, even when it is unpleasant or difficult. Sometimes, we have to trudge along through inconveniences or even outright hardships, but that's human existence. It isn't our employer's responsibility to safeguard us from every decision we personally make, but it is our responsibility to take ownership of our personal liberty and the consequences of our decisions, great and small.
Finally, the irony of "championing personal choice" by forcibly mandating others to act against, well, against their "personal choice," is comical to epic degrees (but somehow the hilarity seems to be lost on many). Since this is not an issue of outlawing birth control, women will still have other options for obtaining it (like, um, paying for it on their own, perhaps?), but employers will completely forfeit their own personal choice by surrendering their right to object to financing those things they find morally reprehensible. It seems, however, that certain choices just aren't as important as others. For example, it would appear, given popular consensus on the matter, that the physical needs, desires, or choices of one individual are inherently more valuable than the spiritual and ethical considerations of another. Yet, when we think beyond our personal inclinations, why should one's desire (i.e. "choice") to engage in an active sex life usurp another individual's commitment to oppose the ending of a child's life (however developmentally small that human being may be)? Because, despite what the media tells you, this is the crux of the matter: it's not a war on women, it's not mere religiosity, but rather, it's a question of ethics.
The ironies, the inconsistencies, and the improbabilities of the popular arguments against the Hobby Lobby decision are enough to make one's head spin, but one can only hope that after greater reflection we can all recognize the hypocrisy of forcing others to act against their carefully formulated convictions to uphold some twisted (and extremely limited) view of "personal choice." And with all that stands to be lost by compelling employers to act against their organization's values, one has to wonder: who really has it out for the American people?
M.K.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)