Okay, so I took some liberties with that Emerson quote–but if you want a great example of hypocritical inconsistency, look no farther than this.
These twisted people will make any argument, no matter how stupid or contradictory, if they think it will persuade others to deprive GLBT folks of equal treatment under the law. When you think about it, it’s sad.
Sometimes, the Letters to the Editor are just jaw-dropping excursions into the depths of illogic. This morning’s entrant into the “it ain’t what you don’t know that hurts you, it’s what you know that just ain’t so” sweepstakes is a prime example.
The writer says there is no “war on women,” rather, it is a war for “immorality, secularism and the destruction of Christianity.” And what is the weapon being deployed in this war? The requirement that health insurance include coverage for birth control.
Where to begin?
Perhaps we might question the writer’s assumption that use of birth control equates to “immorality.” (“Procreation is a gift from God. It is not a form of recreation.”) Evidently, only participants in “recreational” sex use birth control. We probably should tell that to the doctors who prescribe contraceptives to treat a variety of medical conditions, including but not limited to menorrhagia.
We might also note that the writer’s defense of this position by Catholics who believe in the “sanctity of life” conveniently ignores the lack of Church outrage over the use of its tax dollars to fund capital punishment and war.
Finally, we might gently note that the First Amendment religion clauses are not violated when taxes paid by “Christians and people of faith” are spent for purposes of which they disapprove. If that were the case, every dollar spent on war and weaponry would violate the religious liberty of Quakers. Money spent to enforce “blue laws” would violate the rights of Jews and Seventh Day Adventists. Taxes supporting high schools would violate the religious liberty of the Amish. In a religiously diverse nation, there are hundreds of other examples.
Religious liberty does not mean government must impose your religious beliefs on your neighbors. Catholics, who not so long ago struggled against state imposition of Protestant norms, should be particularly sensitive to that bit of legal revisionism.
That, of course, would require the use of logic.