IM: Yes, I remember. Even President Obama got involved by calling
Fluke to offer support and harshly criticized Limbaugh for the comment.
Gadfly: Why did Limbaugh risk such criticism?
IM: He did not like the fact that Fluke wanted
free contraception, and because she became a symbolic wedge in the debate
between a government mandate and the Catholic Church’s insistence upon freedom
of religion. In this case, the Catholic
Church, which serves as an employer and self-insures, did not want to be
coerced into paying for contraception because the mandate violates one of the
Church’s doctrines.
Gadfly: Fluke is not married. So, why does she want contraception?
IM: A prudish comment, Gadfly. Fluke wants to be protected from unwanted
pregnancies. Except for artificial
insemination, a woman can only become pregnant from sexual activity with a man. So,
does this not make Fluke a prostitute?
Gadfly: Technically no. A prostitute, or equivalent term such as
whore, harlot, or strumpet, solicits and accepts payment for sex. There is no indication Fluke has done
this.
IM: Hearing you say words like whore, harlot, and
strumpet seems harsh, Gadfly.
Gadfly: IM, alcoholics do not have the exclusive
claim on a life of denial. Other
behaviors that take on a force of habit also suffer denial, such as gluttony, envy,
pride, sloth, greed, etc.
IM: You just listed what the Christian religion
refers to as capital sins.
Gadfly: Very true.
And while Sandra Fluke may not be a prostitute, more accurate terms to
describe her behavior include promiscuous, licentious, wanton, unchaste, lecherous,
and lascivious. These behaviors stem
from lust, another capital sin.
IM: But, these so called capital sins really only
make sense from a religious perspective.
Gadfly: Yes, but how about secular progressive
capital sins that violate political correctness such as racism, homophobia, doubts
about causes of global warming, prolife views that challenge claims of reproductive
rights, etc.? These examples are equivalent
to capital sins from a secular progressive worldview.
IM: Good point.
So, why did Fluke speak at the Democratic National Convention?
Gadfly: Of course, Fluke was invited by Obama’s team
for engineering
public sentiment. Her presence and
speech at the Democratic National Convention was designed to symbolize and
rally many single women who subscribe to her view of life, want free
contraception, and thus voted for Obama because of his strident position in
favor of and encouragement of this kind of behavior.
IM: I see what you mean, Gadfly; but, this
conversation still makes me very uncomfortable because these explicit
conversations rarely occur nowadays.
Gadfly: By
the way, recall in our last
conversation, we included John Stuart Mill’s observation about people being
“used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the
service and for the selfish purposes of a master.”[1] Obama’s engineering public sentiment team
obviously used Sandra Fluke as an instrument in the Presidential election
contest.
IM: It seems that way.
Gadfly: So, how about Sister Simone Campbell, Executive
Director of Network and leader of the Nuns on a Bus project, who, in addition
to Sandra Fluke, also spoke at the Democratic National Convention?
IM: I remember watching her speech when she
criticized the Romney-Ryan plan that would hurt the poor, citing the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops who claimed the Ryan budget failed a basic
moral test because it would harm families currently in poverty.
Gadfly: Yes, Sister Campbell and the Bishops
criticized a plan that has yet to be implemented. The Ryan plan at this point was more theory
than evidence.
IM: Where are you headed with this point?
Gadfly: Sister Campbell obviously endorsed Obama and,
by implication, all of his policies. How
have Obama’s policies benefited the poor over the past four years?
IM: The number
of families on food stamps has significantly increased. Median annual incomes have decreased by more
than $4,000 for the middle class. The
percentage of those families below the poverty level has also increased. And, since
the end of his predecessor’s term, and despite claims of “creating over 5
million jobs,” Obama’s policies have actually resulted in net job losses of
over 2 million, and a significantly lower labor force participation rate, from
65.8% in December 2008 to 63.8% at the end of October 2012.
Gadfly: IM, you just described actual evidence that strongly
suggests Obama’s policies are actually hurting the poor and the middle class,
not helping them.
IM: So, why would Sister Campbell bet on Obama’s losing
track record over an untested plan that is designed to strengthen the economy
with new jobs and corresponding increases in the quality of life for everyone,
which seems very progressive, i.e., actual progress for humankind?
Gadfly: Clever thought about the ideal meaning of
progressive. You know, the political
progressive movement, which drives the Democratic
Party’s current vision, employs social justice as the means of achieving
equal outcomes for the masses, which has little to do with progress. But, back to Sister Campbell . . . What is even
more ironic, how could Sister Campbell back a candidate who believes nearly half
a billion of federal funding per year is not enough to support Planned
Parenthood and its 1.2 million abortions per year industry, which happens to be
a consequence of the progressive movement’s doctrine that protects a woman’s
reproductive right?
IM: Now I see where you were heading on this
point. Sister Campbell was looking for
something, perhaps prestige, branding, or financial grants, in return for her
public support, thus prostituting her Catholic affiliation for political gain.
Gadfly: Yes. This
behavior made me realize there is a profound difference between a progressive
Catholic and a Catholic progressive. A
progressive Catholic modifies her religious positions based on her political
views--in this case, the secular progressive doctrine of social justice, where
political elites establish rights and provide for the masses. On the other hand, a Catholic progressive
modifies her political positions based on her religious views--in this case, the
Catholic doctrine of natural law and respect for life. This dichotomy may explain why 50% of
Catholic voters voted for Obama and 48% for Romney. Progressive Catholics now seem to outnumber
Catholic progressives.
IM: The subtle, yet profound distinction between
progressive Catholics and Catholic progressives has powerful implications,
Gadfly. For starters, the Old Testament
documents similar struggles between secularism and religion during the cultural
evolution of the Jewish community more than two thousand years ago.
Gadfly: Excellent point to wrap up our discussion,
IM. I look forward to discussing the implications
of the American cultural evolution associated with progressivism in greater
depth with you.
[1] John Stuart Mill, “The Contest in America,” Fraser’s Magazine, April 1862. This essay is in the public domain and
available at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5123/pg5123.txt
No comments:
Post a Comment