Sunday, September 16, 2012

The War on Terror vs. The War on Women

It’s interesting to note that those who think the term “war on terror” is politically incorrect seem to be very comfortable with the term “war on women”.

The war on terror should be called “overseas contingency operation”, but the war on women, happening right here at home, is a real war and The Catholic Church is a top aggressor. How dare they not help pay for the contraception of others; to help them deface their natural & healthy fertility!? How dare the Church want legal protection for every human life!? Have you ever heard of such madness!? While this travesty is happening in the U.S, there are some actually worried about a few extremists in the Middle East who get carried away sometimes.  If we could be a little nicer to them, I’m sure they would lighten-up so we could focus more on the real war happening in our own backyard.
In case you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. What would a real war on women look like? Consider a scenario where men kill innocent women and call it an “honor killing” or a land where men will relieve a woman of her nose with a knife if she removes her veil in public. Now that is a war on women if I ever heard of one.
Is the Catholic Church an enemy of women or did the Catholic Church actually begin woman’s liberation? In a book called How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D., we read about some interesting things that may not be taught in our public schools (or Catholic schools for that matter).
Ø  After the promiscuity of the ancient Romans, the early Church taught that intimate relations were only for husband and wife restoring dignity to women and marriage in general.
Ø  The Church also sanctified marriage elevating it to the level of a sacrament and prohibited divorce. This was a huge benefit to the women of the ancient world. Men could not leave their wives with nothing to run off and marry another woman.
Ø  Adultery, according to the Church was not confined to only a wife’s infidelity, as the ancient world so often had it. The men were held equally accountable.
Ø  The Catholic Church helped women gain autonomy. Women were allowed to form self-governing communities. Where in history were women able to run their own schools, convents, colleges, hospitals and orphanages outside Catholicism?
So numerous were the women joining the Church in the early centuries, the Romans thought Christianity was a religion for women.
As mentioned before on this blog, every problem has a cause and an effect and it is important to know which is which. Do we really understand the cause of the problem or are we only fixated on the effects? A root-cause of many societal problems is a misunderstanding of the word “freedom”. The supposed war on woman is about people thinking rights are being taken away and taking away rights would be akin to losing freedom, but if we understand true freedom we understand this: Freedom is NOT being able to do what we want; freedom is being able to do what we ought.

Fight for true freedom


  1. I partially agree with your post, however you seem to put some really bad stereotypes about muslims, even extremists. Where do you get that they kill women if they take their veils off? Source please? Also, you seem to not understand that the Affordable Care act is for the people who can't afford this things. And you seem to think that a woman has to obligatorily get pregnant, which is degrading her to no more than a machine (I know you don't think like that, but that's how you're threating women. A working class woman simply doesn't have the money to provide for many children, and NFP is not only very hard to follow, it also isn't very effective. And you might call this mothers the equivalent of sex crazed sluts only in a much more sophisticated and respectful way, but you can't interfere in their private lifes. If they want to make love to their husbands, there's nothing wrong with that. And if they want to avoid having children because they don't have the money, there's nothing wrong with that either. Contraception allows for this two things. Not to mention, birth control pills may also help women with other health issues that the Church does allow, but that they can't affor them. So, in this sense, while this is hardly a war and this is just a dramatization for political purposes, you will denying all of what I describe earlier if the Affordable act is repealed.

    1. Hello again Alejandro,
      Just Google “women with nose cut off” (or ears) and see what you learn. Then search “honor killings”. As far as contraception, think about this; what is propose of artificial contraception? Why was it invented? It is for people to have all the sexual pleasure they want without having any children. It was not invented as “medicine” and fertility is not a disease. Stop and think about that, even if only on secular level. If someone can’t afford it, the government should FORCE others to help pay for contraceptives to insure they can have all the sexual pleasure they want. Is this the purpose of government? What other pleasures should we be forced to pay for?

      NFP is free and natural and environmentally friendly and VERY, VERY effective. My wife and I have used it for 12 years and give talks about it. It has been 100% effect for us. Once learned and practice, it is simpler than you can imagine. Women are infertile MOST of the time naturally.

    2. Yeah, but not for taking the veil off. Fertility is not a disease, no one is claiming that, however there are families who can't afford having many children, and there are women who are better not getting pregnant because of her health. As for wanting all the sexual pleasure, that's just one way to look at it. Another is to unite in love with your partner. Sex trascends pleasure. Its not for sex crazed individuals. And as I said, you can't threat a woman like a baby machine. Contraception avoids this. You also forget STDs, and B16 has already said how the use preservatives to avoid AIDS and probably other STDs is allowed.
      As for NFP, how many children do you have? Its environmentally friendly, that's something I completley agree, however, I have found testimonies completley contradicting what you are saying. Its not easy, its very hard to follow actually, and you still have the danger of getting an unwanted pregnancy.

    3. We have 3 children and none were “surprises”. We found NFP difficult only at first, due to irregular fertility cycles. We had to answer the question found throughout salvation history very early in our marriage. The question was and is “Will you trust God?” or “Will you do things God’s way or man’s way?” We trusted, and after our first child my wife’s cycles became much more predictable and easy to interpret, which can happen once a woman has a child. God provides if you trust.

      As far as the Pope and condoms, we read this in a book called, Benedict XVI Light of the World, on page 119:

      “Are you saying then that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

      She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexually.”

      The best analogy I’ve heard for this was offering to use a rubber hammer instead of an iron hammer to beat someone with. Both are wrong, but offering the rubber hammer is “a first step in a movement toward a different way”.

    4. Did you read the cases I put? And in any case, again, not all women are fit to get pregnant, but they also want intimacy with their husbands, and birth control provides a much safer way than natural planning, and that quote just confirms what I said, that the pope has authorized the use of preservatives to avoid STDs. There is nothing wrong with that. For this reasons is why people need health care.

    5. I read one of the NFP stories and I’ve heard others because my wife and I are involved with NFP and we have had struggles ourselves. I think it can be boiled down to a few theological type questions.

      Is there any way know God’s natural law?

      Can God’s laws be trusted as being best for us?

      Who I am living for? Am I living for God or am I living for myself?

      If I answer yes the three questions, then I will never break God’s law intentionally. Breaking God’s laws will never help you in the end, and when I say “end” I mean to include eternal life, not just the end of child bearing years.

    6. But you said you only found NFP difficult at first. You also think everyone is a catholic and agrees with your vision of God. Many do not see any problem with believing in God and using contraception. For that reason alone you simply cannot force anyone who disagrees with you to conform to your view. Thats just wrong. Again, are you going to force low class women who cannot afford having children and cannot afford paying for their own health without help to not have something that will be very befeciary to them?

    7. Yes, struggles at first; the first year of our marriage. The more children we had the easier it was to interpret fertility signs. Is this coincidence or God’s design?

      I’m not saying everyone is Catholic; I am saying that natural law applies to everyone like the law of gravity. You can dislike or “disagree” about gravity all you want, but it remains universal an unchangeable. Your feelings about gravity would be a separate discussion point.

      I’m not suggesting that people should be forced to do anything about birth regulation. Choosing how to regulate birth is a lifestyle choice since fertility and pregnancy are not diseases, and no one should be FORCED to pay for another’s lifestyle choice.

    8. Not everyone agrees on natural law either. And not everyone holds to natural law too. Again, you are laying you're own interpretation of natural law, or making everyone hold to natural law when they disagree to that, and basically focing it on everybody else. And again, you can't treat a woman like a baby machine, you seem to ignore that point, and you seem to ignore that there are women who can't afford more than one son. Also, its not just that they don't wish to follow NFP, is that they don't know how to, and I guess they need courses for that or pay a doctor that tells them how. I don't know how expensive that would be, but it definetly would be simpler to just have available birth control.
      Also, you seem to treat corporations and institutions as people, when they are not. They don't have rights, or at least not the same ones as an individual. And you can talk about "religious" institutions all you want, but a hospital is not a purely religious institution because it provides secular services, at that point it stops being a religious institution, unlike a church or synagogue which is exclusively reserved for religious purposes, but a catholic school or university provides education and other services totally unrelated to religion. At that point, they become subject to secular law. If that wasn't the case, a corporation, institution, etc. can just suddenly decide that it is religious and avoid the law that way. Institutions have to provide insurance to their employees, and are subject to the state. For this reason, "religious" institutions have to provide insurance.

    9. So if I will not pay for another woman’s contraception, I’m treating her like a baby machine. I say if you do pay for a woman’s contraception, you are treating her like a sex-machine.

      The Couple to Couple League, that offered our NFP class years ago, offered services for free for those who could not afford it. Last I checked they still do this.

      As far as the use of artificial contraception and natural law or moral law, it is not about my interpretation. You are not disagreeing with me; you are disagreeing with the Catholic Church.

      As far as institutions and secular law, unjust laws should be protested or boycotted. Racial segregation was once part of the secular law in the U.S. Many people worked hard protesting to change the law.

      Thanks for the civil and lively debate, but I’m going to move on to work on my next post. God Bless.

    10. I didn't say that not paying for contraception is treating a woman like a baby machine. Its just that you are implying that one should accept the number of sons God gives you, when even ignoring atheists and agnostics, not all christians accept this or view reproduction like this. And paying for contraception of women is not treating her like a sex machine since a woman can buy the insurance but not even use contraception. Also, you talk as if having sex between married couples is something wrong. And how many organizations are like the Couple to Couple League? And imagine how much time you have to dedicate to it. Not only do married couples have to work, they also have many other things in their personal lives going on, and you forget how they have to drive and come around, it would be very time consuming. That's what you're telling people to subject to. Its much better to just have contraception readily available. As for natural law, again not everyone subscribes to it, and the Roman Church have their own interpretation of natural law, certainly it can be interpreted in a social darwinist way, something that would be awful. And this is not an unjust law. I've seen how people have compared paying for contraception to paying for guns or slavery, and you are doing it with racial segregation. First of all, a woman can buy this insurance and not use the contraception it covers. And second, racial segregation and slavery are simply miles apart from an insurance that covers contraception that is optional to use. The government is not forcing people to use contraception, its just saying that once you have this insurance you can use it to cover your sterilizations or pills. That's it. And for many people, this law is actually just, because it can make them move on and, in case of women, emancipate them. It really depends on who sees it. Right now, what happens is that people simply don't want to pay more money and are putting up every excuse they want to avoid it.

  2. Another parallel would be the so called war on Religion (or what will soon arise in the media - the annual so called war on Christmas which tells me to get going on my Christmas shopping). How can there be a war on religion when all but one of the US members of Congress believe in a God, every US President has been a Christian and religions still enjoy a tax free status that is denied to secular agencies? The only change lately is that public institutions are starting in some case, but not all, to enforce their secular mandate.

    As to the role of women within the Catholic Church. I'm not sure why they put up with it and do not demand immediate change or leave. But would any self respecting man belong to an organization and dedicate his life to an organization that intrinsically bars him because of his sex from having any leadership role (deacon, priest, bishop, pope) in the organization. Of course not. I;ve never met one guy who would.

    1. Nuns become that because they want to be secluded, live in meditation and dedicate their life to God, not for administrative or bureacratic reasons, and they do it on their own, they are not forced by the Church (they can be forced by her family, but that's a totally unrelated matter) the same with monks, and women are allowed leadership in secular catholic groups. Sisters (all nuns are sisters, but not all sisters are nuns) become that to assist the poor and to help in other things in the Church, as well, and they get a fair amount of freedom to that. They don't want to become bishops or any of that. But there are still many who do want the ordination of women and rebel against the church for this. The LCWR is a recent example.