politixcartoons:

New cartoons
for your inbox!


Safely delivered by FeedBurner

Archive for Church

Separation of Church and State?

Okay, so to address the argument I hear spewed constantly, “Separation of church and state is guaranteed via our Constitution. Keep your religion out of our laws.”

Of course, it’s an easy argument to refute, you know, considering the fact that the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t even in our Constitution! In fact, the separation the Constitution does mentions is the separation of powers between branches of government, and considering the Congress’s and Supreme Court’s inability to keep the Executive or each other in check these days, one wonders how much this is being violated.

Thomas Jefferson did mention the “wall of separation” in a letter ABOUT the first Amendment, but Jefferson was more concerned about the state invading onto the church. Not to mention the fact that the Constitution wasn’t even ratified by Jefferson, and that the language of the first amendment was understood and passed by devout church goers to be exactly as it reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!” As in, if a bakery owner does not want to make a gay cake topper due to religious objections and free exercise, she has that constitutional right!

But beyond that, the idea that there is no religion in our laws is ludicrous!

There is a Christian moral standard, just as there is a moral standard to every belief. State law is dictated by one person or another’s moral standard. Whomever is in charge will always impose their belief system on the populace. I don’t believe incandescent lightbulbs are going to destroy the planet. But because somebody else holds this moral belief, they have been banned. Sharia law is the moral standard in other countries, replacing Habeas Corpus. It’s impossible to separate “church” and “state” when you broaden the definition of “church” to all moral belief systems. In America, law is determined by the moral code of those whom the majority have elected. This is now what the will of the people has determined. Christians, now as a minority, must deal with the laws of the current “church” that is in power. I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing, it’s just an observation I’m making.

So we are commanded to keep OUR religion out of law, but OTHER religion is permissible? I mention this to try and get you to recognize it for what it is. You’re fine pushing your belief system on others even as you scold us not to do so to you. Recognize that belief is belief and we ALL are working to try and get others to agree with us, regardless of where we stand on the religious and political spectrum.

HHS Mandate

In case you have been living in a bubble the past few years, let me explain this cartoon for you. Obamacare has a provision which mandates that all employers, regardless of their religious objections, provide their employees with abortive and contraceptive care services.

To me, it was quite obvious what an obtrusion of religious freedom this mandate really was. In my narrow world-view, I could not conceive how anybody could choose the side of anti-freedom in this debate.

Then the attacks came and I quickly learned that those in favor of the mandate, through some twisted logic, labeled the mandate as being for freedom, and the churches as being against freedom. And in typical liberal fashion, it did not stop there. Many liberals then went on to conclude that because churches were against this mandate, they must somehow also be against women in general. Thus, conservatives must also want to deny women voting rights, working rights, fair pay, all the way down the line!

I remember a heated debate I had with a liberal friend. What was frustrating was that I just wished he would consider where I was coming from, even for a moment. A church is protected, by the Constitution, with their own freedoms. A church should be allowed to have a conscientious objection to covering abortive care, if it violates their tenants. But according to this man I was talking to, how dare the church push it’s views on its workers (he actually used the word ‘dare’).

I gently tried to explain to him, that the worker voluntarily chooses to work for the church, knowing their stance on these issues. If the worker does not like the church’s position, GET ANOTHER JOB! Nobody is forcing that worker to stay there. If the worker feels like they are being proselytized while at their church job, guess what, it’s the church’s building, the church’s payroll, the church’s right to believe and preach whatever they want. Freedom is allowing the church to have these positions, even if they are contrary to your own. If you don’t like it, too bad. That’s the consequence of a free society.

According to my friend, the church, by not refusing to pay for this lady’s contraceptives, is denying her access to care. Huh? The church is not stopping her from getting whatever contraceptive stuff she wants. If she wants it, she can pay for it. (And that goes for a lot of things by the way, from food, to vacations, to BMWs). If the church followed her to Walgreens and told the clerk not to sell this woman contraceptives, then yes, that would be a problem. But that’s not what is happening here. And again, I stress, if the woman wishes for somebody else to pay for these services, find another job that offers it as a benefit.

And I might add, if the lady lives a life that is promiscuous, the church should have the RIGHT to fire her if it violates some sort of ethical code they might have on chastity. There’s plenty of other employers who will hire such a woman. The church should have that freedom.

I could not get my friend to see where I was coming from and before long, the debate was starting to get so heated that I figured I should simply end it for fear of losing a friend. Following our debate, I began to see liberal talking heads repeating his same arguing lines, almost verbatim, without regard to the points conservatives have been desperately trying to make. Our voices are small, and the liberals have placed a bet that this is a winning issue for them on this election.


Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, let me say one other thing, and this goes back to something Joe Biden said in the VP debates. He said that while he is pro-life, he wouldn’t force his morals on other people. This is a tired, old, worn debate I’ve heard most of my life. Every time I hear it, I begin to deconstruct it logically in my mind, and it simply does not make sense. I wish that just once, somebody would throw this back at whomever uses this line in future debates, simply because it is a logical fallacy.

Let me break it down for you. First, don’t tell me liberals don’t like to push their morals on other people. Please! What do you call smoking bans? What do you call the ban on the incandescent? What do you call soda pop bans? What do you call bans on manger scenes at Christmas time? Or crosses at memorials? EVERYBODY tries to push their moral world view through politics. And it’s a good thing, too. We all agree that murder is morally objectionable. Therefore, as a consensus, we have banned murder. If we were to truly hold to the idea that it’s not up to us to push our morals on other people, then we should allow murderers to kill, because it’s not up to us to push our morals on them.

As you can see, that’s utterly preposterous. The same holds true for abortion. If deep down in the soul of your convictions, you truly felt that abortion was murder of the unborn, it would not matter what the other person felt about the issue. It’s morally objectionable to you, and you would work to try and stop it. Since abortion is the law of the land, you would have to go about your work through the legislative process, but ultimately, trying to win the hearts and minds of people to see why you find it so objectionable.

Here’s another analogy. Let’s take another issue, say, pedophilia. Let’s say we lived in a society that found sexual violation of child to be no big deal, so they legalized it. But you thought it was awful. Would you say, oh, I’m against pedophilia, but I’m not going to push my morals on other people? Of course not! You would say that this is a horrible act and you are going to work to ban it!

The same holds true for abortion. To say that you’re against abortion, but you’re not going to push your views on other people tells me that you really are not against abortion at all! If you found it to be the despicable act that I see it to be, then you would work just as hard to stop it as I try to do.

Abortion is an extremely divisive issue and it does not lend itself to much humor. I apologize for the length of this column, but if you are still interested in reading more, I implore you to read an excellent article on this topic written by a friend, PA Ritzer. His article can be found here.

 

Recant

I debated on whether or not I wanted to go through with this cartoon. I know it’s going to cause controversy, and believe it or not, despite being a political cartoonist, I really don’t like controversy. What pushed me over the edge were the multiple cartoons out there equating Santorum as being the leader of the Crusades, here to chop off your head if you don’t accept his religion. What a bunch of inflammatory nonsense! And while the Catholic church does have the stain of the Crusades as part of their history, many, many more Christians and Catholics lost their lives from Roman times to present day, due only to their faith.

These recent attacks on Santorum are not really aimed at him, but at Christianity in general. They are quite telling. According to a number of Liberals I’ve talked with, if you proclaim your faith, it’s ramming it down people’s throats. Therefore, equating Christians to all kinds of horrible activities is justified. Yet, they wouldn’t dare say those kinds of things against the Muslim faith, even though some jihadists will kill you if you don’t accept their faith.

But the most frustrating thing of all is the legislation Obama passed that would force Catholic organizations to provide abortion and contraceptive services to their employees, despite their moral objections. What’s frustrating is not that Obama did this, for he has shown his true colors by now, but that many of my friends are saying this is an issue of freedom. By not forcing the organization to provide contraceptives is denying the employees their freedom, thus this legislation was necessary. Huh?

The choice of what the organization provides as compensation, paid or in benefits, to its employees, should be up to that organization. That’s freedom folks! Freedom is allowing everybody their choice, including the so-called big guy. It’s the employers company, the employer’s money, the employer’s risk and the employee freely chooses to work there. Nobody is forcing that employee to work there. If they don’t agree with the company’s moral standards, then find another job. Santorum had it right. By forcing Catholic organizations to provide contraceptive services, it’s the government forcing its belief system on the church! Liberals get so worked up about the imaginary “Wall of Separation,” yet if they want to have this wall, then they need to be willing to keep their liberal government out of the church as well.

I’m not a Catholic, and I rarely get offended, but this past week has been very instructive about how people really view the church. And let me tell you, some of the talk has been scary. Religious freedom in America is on attack, and that’s really what this cartoon is about.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...