I can't listen to NPR for half an hour without someone completely missing the point, so I guess I'm left to be the interpreter. With the caveat that it's probably not a suitable joke for Andrea Mitchell's show... here's the explanation.
You put the aspirin between your knees, see? And then the only way for the aspirin to stay there is for your knees to stay together, see? This would greatly reduce the chances that you'll be penetrated by a phallus, see? Ergo, the aspirin between the knees works almost perfectly as a form of birth control.
I can accept the fact that people express phony outrage at a tired old joke. Just the way the game is played.
What's a little less acceptable is the fact that people are pretending that anyone in this country is trying to prevent women (or men, I suppose) from getting contraceptives. That's a non-issue in this day and age and everyone knows it. The issue is whether or not you force churches to pay for it. For all the lectures that I've had to endure about the "wall of separation" from these shitheads, they sure do seem to enjoy using the state to impose its will on the Church.
These things are bound to happen when the church branches out of the church business.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it more like the government branching into the church business?
ReplyDeleteIf this discussion involved the Vatican city/state perhaps. I'm pretty sure the "wall of separation" reference puts Joe's argument in the context of this country, however.
ReplyDeleteI'm not seeing the church branching out here. Is the charity a problem? Or maybe the free medical care? The shelters for battered women and homeless people? Or the adoption agencies and orphanages and whatnot?
ReplyDeleteThe illegal divorce? Err, wait a minute. The illegal fornication. Uhh, hang on a sec. The illegal adultery? Hah, good one! The illegal contraception? Funny. The illegality of war? Ehh, nah. Restraint from the death penalty? Swing and a miss. The ban on sodomy? Surely you jest. Prayer in schools? We wouldn't think of it.
Seriously, I sometimes come across like I think I know everything, but I actually don't know that much. I've read about the Puritans in the colonies and so forth, but I was born in '76 to a quasi-hippie mother. I've lived a less than moral life and haven't felt the wrath of the supposed thocracy, so perhaps my view is skewed... or whatever. Yet, unlike many of my fellow Americans, I'm completely aware of my own shortcomings. I'm am immoral dipshit. I'm not ashamed. Many of my fellow Americans are also immoral dipshits, but they seem to be uncomfortable with the prospect. In the case that you know something that I don't, please feel free to enlighten me.
It seems to me that the church/state arguments in this country center around crosses in the desert and manger scenes at City Hall. If the price to be paid is that Catholic charities have to fund the morning-after pill, I'm pretty sure the Catholics will go ahead and remove the cross from the desert.
If, on the other hand, there's a bullshit subversive ideological reason behind all of this (like convincing various impressionable women that Republicans want to ban contraceptives), I'll go ahead and pretend that this comment thread never happened. Forgive and forget, as the saying goes.
This was directed at Anon #1, in case that wasn't clear. The subsequent two comments seem to reflect something closer to what I consider to be common sense, so yeah. That's all good. I remain to be be persuaded that "free exercise" means "funding that which you consider to be in direct opposition to your religious views."
ReplyDeleteAnon#1 is me as well. I figured if I was going to comment twice I should at least attach a name to it. Anyways...
ReplyDeleteThe church does a lot of great things, no argument here.
Where I think we may differ is in the area of what "free exercise" means. My general belief is that interpreting phrases like these needs to be done with a heavy emphasis on the context in which they were written.
I operate under the assumption that the major function of the church/religion at that time was much more limited than it is today.
In a nutshell, if the church functions as a group of people who organize to live according to certain preachings, spread the word, practice their beliefs, etc, they are entitled to "free exercise".
When the church branches out of the church business and into regulated areas like insurance, I don't believe they should be entitled to the same "free exercise".
For what it's worth - Christian churches have been providing numerous services other than preaching and organized worship for around 2,000 years. This predates, by an awful lot of years, any government presently in existence. Kathleen Sebelius, on the other hand, has been dictating to churches for roughly a week.
ReplyDeleteMakes me question who it is exactly that is "branching out."
Agreed, the pre-existence of religion and its institutions was clearly acknowledged by the writers of the constitution. They intentionally set out to protect the "church" in fact but did so within the context of a government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.
ReplyDelete