After yesterday’s post, I noticed this article – trying to tell Christians that they’ve done the wrong thing… or something.
Here are the reasons one “Carol Howard Merritt” has.
Christians should always uphold human rights. Jesus taught us a great deal when he healed the woman who had been bleeding. He taught us that women who demand healing ought to find that cure. Jesus restored her to health, even though the established religion deemed that she was unclean. Jesus ignored the men in charge, and he listened to the woman in suffering.
So far, so good.
That medical condition would now be treated with contraception. Birth Control is considered a basic human right, according to the United Nations. It’s important for the health of women. It keeps women and children out of poverty.
1. Christians should uphold human rights.
2. Human rights are defined by the UN.
Therefore, we conclude:
3. The UN is the body that decides which rights a Christian should support.
Wait, that seems wrong somehow. Wasn’t the Bible supposed to be in there somewhere?
But that raises a serious concern: how did Christians know what to do before the UN came along? Maybe they had some sort of system of deciding right and wrong before the UN? It’s possible people!
The fact that a corporation would want to deny (yes, I said deny. If you’re making a Hobby Lobby clerk’s salary, it’s very difficult to pay for contraception without insurance coverage) a woman’s basic human right is disgraceful. People of faith should care about the dignity of all humans–particularly those who cannot afford to have children. We should always be willing to walk in the footsteps of Jesus, and see to the dignity, worth, and healing of women, even when the established religious power says that she should be denied.
Jesus healed a woman, so how dare you deny a woman earning well above minimum wage (seriously, google it) the right to have their employer pay for 4 out of 20 mandated birth control methods.
Christians should encourage life-saving science and medicine.
Paging Dr Obvious.
It has been frustrating to watch people say that contraception is an “abortifacient” when the medical and scientific community has said that it is not.
Wait, what? One second we’re talking about life-saving medicine, next we’re abusing people for avoiding something that they think kills.
Anyway, having done a bit of reading, it is entirely possible that she’s right on this point – is may well be that at least one of the 4 disputed methods does not work by preventing implantation.
If so, yay! There is no ethical concern here. All we have is a failure to communicate the science properly. That’s a pity.
But on the other, if some of them do in fact prevent implantation then they are considered by Christian ethicists to be abortifacients. In other words, talking about what science has proven misses the point that this is a debate about the ethics.
Here’s a silly analogy. Let’s say Jim refuses to ride in John’s car, because it’s a Honda and Jim believes all Hondas are diesel and he refuses to ride in diesel cars. Now, Jim is wrong about the facts – John’s honda uses petrol. But that mistaken believe about the facts says nothing either way about Jim’s decision to avoid diesel cars.
A religious person’s belief should not trump the facts and take away basic medical care for women, even if it’s sincerely held. Plus, we really should have a faith that is strong enough to endure an eighth grade sex education class.
Here we have a couple of non sequiturs.
- As just demonstrated, there are no “facts” to “trump”. If in fact these methods do not prevent implantation there is no ethical objection.
- The contention that contraception is “basic medical care for women” has not been established in even a cursory way.
Given these issues, it’s hard to analyse the first sentence any further.
Finally for this section, she engages in a childish jab about sex education classes. I have no idea where that even came from.
Christians should care about the environment. One of the very first commands in Genesis was when God told us to care for creation. We were to be stewards of the fish, birds, cattle, wild animals, and every creeping thing.
Again, so far so good. Oh, outside of the whole “fall” thing where a very long-term slide into destruction started, ending in God eventually re-creating the whole thing sometime in the future.
In the United States, we use more resources than people in other parts of the world, and we are causing our destruction. Wars are being fought over petroleum. We frack the ground God gave us because we’re hungry for more fuel. Tension is growing over water rights. Because of our overuse of resources, overpopulation can cause us to defy one of God’s first instructions to us. Allowing for birth control helps us care for creation.
So essentially she’s trying to:
a) make the claim that overpopulation is a real thing
b) make the claim that Christians should be doing something about that and
c) make the claim that birth control is the “something” that should be done.
Quite outside the fact she hasn’t proven that any of those things are valid, this case isn’t about whether a woman can buy birth control. It’s about whether an employer has to pay for a method their beliefs say is unethical.
So… yea, a long bow being drawn there.
Christians believe that women and men are made in the image of God.
Again, start with the statement that no one disagrees with.
People are made in the image of God, not corporations.
Two true statements in a row! We’re on a roll people!
Because of that basic theological understanding, we know that corporations should not be considered over individuals. One of the guiding principles of the Supreme Court’s decision is one of “corporate personhood.” Corporations have corrupted our political process as they have given more power and because they have more money than individual people. We have watched as poor and working class people have lost their voice to the will of corporations. Our economy strains with the increased disparity between the rich and poor. Our country is watching that gap become deep and wide with the related disparities in our quality of education.
So to sum up, Corporations are Evil (TM). They’re run by faceless shareholders… oh wait, this decision covers closely-held corporations, where the company is the personal property of a very small number of individuals.
Now, we give corporations even more power, through allowing the greatest stakeholders the right to withhold medical care to women.
Frustrating how the Christian ethic of “not lying” never seems to occur to this author. No such rights have been given, a very limited ethical objection has been respected.
Jesus said that we should always be looking after “the least of these.” Through giving corporations more power, we are taking away a woman’s human rights and we are ensuring more poverty among women and children.
Yet again, an assertion completely unsupported by any of the facts here. Let alone the idea that small families are better, which isn’t something I see supported in scripture – in fact quite the opposite (Psalm 127).
As a Christian, I am profoundly upset by the Supreme Courts’ decision. And I hope that other men and women of faith might stand with individuals, who are made in the image of God, and who have the right to access the medical care they need.
As a Christian, I just wish people would make conclusions from something resembling an argument. Because it’s pretty hard to respect anyone who writes junk as bad as this one does.