Why Aren't All Christians Conscientious Objectors?

Notice: This entry is less of an 'action-needed' post and more of a 'does anyone else have a problem with this?' post.
Notice #2: Post starts off rant-y but then I must have gotten it all out of my system because it got all lovey-dovey 'What the World Needs Now' at the end. ;)
~~~
This is a topic that has been on my mind all day. It stemmed from someone telling me that when Obamacare tries to make employers pay health insurance, they are interfering with religion freedom because insurance covers abortion now.

FALSE.
(1)It's none of your business what medical procedure someone else chooses;
(2) your premiums have possibly always been paying for others' procedures you don't want for yourself; and
(3) you are not being demanded to HAVE an abortion, so you can continue business as usual with your freedom of religion untouched.

What gets me is that Christians (and I focus on Christians because I was raised Catholic--- and then escaped) are quick to say 'Abortion is Murder and Thou Shall Not Kill!' yet somehow justify
(1) paying their taxes which go towards our over-the-top military that is killing people and
(2) joining the military, knowing they will be involved in killing, whether directly or indirectly.

Granted, not EVERY person in the military will kill someone, just as not EVERY police officer kills someone. And we are told, SOMEBODY has to step up to the threats.

But HOW did Christianity get from "Thou Shall Not Kill" and "Turn the Other Cheek" to "It's Okay to join an Organization that will train me to Kill"? By the very Commandment above, all Christians should be Conscientious Objectors who refuse to join the military because they are NOT supposed to kill. There is no asterisk on the stone tablet that says 'unless you or your family or your country is being threatened.'

Nope, it's pretty cut and dry... but then again... are we not supposed to kill animals or plants for food either? A bit confusing, that Bible of oh-so-many authors.

I understand, I have the freedom to say this because supposedly it was won for me by people with guns. People who by definition, are braver than I, because they got put in some terrible situations. But I'm not sure war accomplishes what we think it does. War doesn't tell you who is right or wrong... It tells you who is dead or alive. It tells you who has more weapons or better tactics. Ask veterans if they felt happy after killing. Ask them how they slept after they pulled the trigger. War is Hell.

And yes, letting terrorists or Hitlers run wild is Hell too. And sticking a daisy in someone's gun may make for a nice photo but it isn't going to bring about peace, right? But the only peace that happens when two guns are pointed at each other is the silence that ensues AFTER one or both opponents are dead.

Human beings are the ones who drew the lines in the sand and decided that this country stands for this and that country stands for that, and we're so different, we'll probably have to fight. But we aren't different.

What I love about social media and the quick dispersal of technology, is that in an instant, we can see proof that people elsewhere are just like us. We all need food, shelter, water, education, health care and LOVE.

That last part is a big challenge. Humans ARE bellicose and that's what religions were created for... to calm the beast, to hold us to a higher standard. It's not supposed to be easy to follow a religion. And it seems too easy for Christians to join the military despite the killing involved. 

I feel like somewhere along the way, someone decided in order to make Christianity more accessible... they decided to make a caveat to this Commandment. Wikipedia says

• The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt.^[56] The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare (1Kings 2:5–6), capital punishment (Leviticus 20:9–16) and self-defence (Exodus 22:2–3). The New Testament is in agreement that murder is a grave moral evil,^[57] and maintains the Old Testament view of bloodguilt.^[58] 

This to me reeks of convenience. Here is a link summarizing the 'just war' in the teachings of the Catholic Church via the Catechism as explained by somebody and the Catechism's teachings are here. It's just too much to summarize.

Some of it makes sense because it's meant to utilize the teachings of the Church for use in the real world. As the first link says: "The Church has no illusions that true justice and peace can be attained before the Coming of the Lord. It is the duty of men of good will to work towards it, nonetheless. In the words of the spiritual dictum, we should work as if everything depended upon our efforts, and pray as if everything depended upon God."

It's just... frustrating. Somehow 'Thou Shall Not Kill' became 'Thou Shall Not Kill Or At Least Try to Avoid It Because It's Pretty Much Impossible Because Humans Suck, Yo'.


GOD said 'No Killing'. Humans draw lines in the sand and continue to find any reason to kill: Gold, God, Glory, Ego, Judgement, etc. Even though GOD was clear about it, humans made exceptions to keep the religion feasible.

I think it's the easy way out. And if they can make exceptions for killing in war, why can't they make exceptions for abortions in cases of rape or incest? Because the Christian Churches aren't really as black and white as they pretend they are. Because Religious Institutions ARE out to make a buck. They don't pay taxes and get to keep the profit and build nice Churches and schools. Religions are run by fallible human beings who bend God's rules supposedly handed down to Moses.

Whatever good religions and militaries CAN do... they can undo with their inconsistencies and injustice. Why does the rule about 'not killing' suddenly become null and void during times of war? Isn't that when the faithful should be challenged the most to be the peacekeepers? We keep saying it's impossible, but maybe it's that way because religions give us a free pass....

Tell me. HOW many of the world's religions are opposed to killing? If ALL those who followed this shared-commandment put down their weapons... wouldn't THAT be an act of LOVE? Wouldn't THAT be an admission of being created equally by a Creator who wants us to thrive and cherish each other? If even our religions don't think we'll find peace... how else are we supposed to get there? Because these drone strikes, these unholy wars, they aren't getting us there either.

So again, I wonder. How can ANY person of ANY religion that is told 'THOU SHALL NOT KILL' take up arms against another and risk committing that act? Humans are cyclical. Violence begets violence. Cooler heads don't always prevail. There ARE Hitlers and bin Ladens and Abubakar Shekaus in this world. But did they get that way because someone LOVED them too much? Or did they get that way because we're taught 'sometimes it's permissible to kill'?

I may be naïve and overly hopeful, and do I really think logic and reason will get the Nigerian school girls back? Or do I think there IS a need for trained military personnel who are willing to go stop people who use their religion to justify kidnapping and hatred of 'Western education'?

This is a rant that really has no answers. You can be damn sure that if I was kidnapped for wanting an education, I would be praying every moment to be safely rescued by anybody smart enough or strong enough or anybody in the right place at the right time. Would I kill to get away? Maybe... Life is easier in the hypothetical, isn't it?

At the beginning, I said this rant wouldn't be as action-needed as the previous posts. But I guess we DO need action. We need to love each other more. We need to donate more time and money to organizations that provide food, education, attention, resources. We need to get out from behind the things we let divide us, like religion, nationality, sexuality, and focus on the human.

If you've gotten this far, please, in the comments below, share your stories of how and where you donate your time and money to make the world better. Share any small habits you have to improve someone's day. Share anything that makes us better. Share your thoughts, prayers, blessings, hopes for the kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls that may be safely found.

I know this rant started off as 'hey religions are inconsistent and it's a problem!' and turned all lovey-dovey-need-a-better-world, but what else could I do? I spent a day obsessing about something that seemed amiss, and then remembered... nothing is easy. There are really scary people out there who want to do harm to others and we have to deal with it SOMEHOW, but we HAVE to spread more love to prevent hatred and terror from growing. And that's gonna take every single last one of us....

Archdiocese of Omaha in Violation of Tax Exempt Requirements

The Archdiocese of Omaha is conducting illegal business and proudly has it on display for every unfortunate person who has to drive past. I've recently seen banners outside two Churches in my area that say "Protect Religious Freedom" "Defend Marriage" "Protect the Unborn" etc. and give the website for the Archdiocese of Omaha.

Why are these Churches hanging supposedly ambiguous yet politically charged banners a week before elections instead of honoring the requirements to maintain their tax exempt status under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code? The requirement states:

In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Sure, they can say that because these banners do not mention voting nor political parties that it's all okay. But it's not. It's precisely-timed, conniving, manipulative and an abuse of power and influence. And I've seen the papers they have handed out to the blindly faithful. I saw a four page document, reportedly one in a series, distributed in Omaha Churches from the Kansas archbishops that is meant to help 'guide' people on voting issues. Issues in that particular document were 'religious freedom', 'protecting the unborn' and 'defending traditional marriage'.

TAKE ACTION: If you would like to file a Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form for the Archdiocese of Omaha or any specific religious churches or organizations that are in violation of this requirement, you will need to fill out Form 13909 from Department of the Treasury — Internal Revenue Service. In case those links are faulty, that's http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf
To claim a reward for providing this information to the IRS, file Form 211, Application for Reward for Original Information.

If you need me to spout more of my disgust as to WHY these banners and documents are wrong/annoying/illegal, I shall proceed. But please, if you feel compelled, report these abuses to the IRS. We need to speak out AND take action in order to bring about change.

Ahem.

1) I don't go to Church because I don't like to be preached to, told what to think or how to behave. (Nor is there sound logic to much of what they say.) So I definitely don't want to see these eyesore banners that promote phrases and ideas that are reactionary and ill-founded, not to mention lacking in all sorts of ways. I can string words and phrases together too and put them on a banner with a website and stick it on a chainlink fence, but really? It's just advertising another money-making venture. Admit it. Or don't.

2) The very fact that you stick these banners on a fence at a busy intersection means that you HAVE religious freedom. And that you are obnoxiously abusing it. The Jewish and Hindu places of worship in the neighborhood are not the attention-seekers you are. They are MUCH more preferable than you judgmental loudmouths. I don't think I ever hear those religious groups whine and complain as much as the Christian right. The Islamic community should complain though because apparently it's okay to say "Obama is a Muslim" and expect that to be understood as a negative thing.

3) A law to provide health care is NOT an affront to your religion. I don't care if you don't like birth control. It's used for medical reasons MORE than contraception. And the government already made an allowance for those of you who don't care to understand and continue to see ONE use of a medicine. Still not satisfied? STFU. We are a SECULAR nation. And stop quoting the founding fathers. They created a nation to escape religious persecution and YOU changed the Pledge and the moneys in the 50s in your Red Scare fervor (or whatever other demented reason you decided to use to start persecuting everyone in the name of religion. Don't you judge me!)

4) Who are you defending marriage against? People who want to get married? They don't want to get married in your Churches, they want their CIVIL RIGHT to sign a contract with another consenting adult. So stop spouting your hateful, ignorant, ill-informed drivel at everyone. We don't care what you want other people to do, how you want them to live, if you approve of them. You aren't freaking saints and when you continue to judge the lifestyles of people you don't know, you get much farther from your pious ideals and your true underlying hatefulness shows. 

5) And protecting the unborn while demanding that women return to just being birth vessels. I'm glad you have ALL the answers on the specifics of how women should handle rape, incest or endangerment of life. But no one asked you. The decision is not yours and there are plenty of children in YOUR town that are already born and are in need of loving homes with food, clothing and education. Truthfully, I'd rather abort than know a child is going to grow up in a household that would condemn them for being gay, having safe sex or being of a non-Christian faith.



So, if I sound like a hateful liberal nutjob... too bad. The religious right makes no apologies, but I will at least say this. If what I've said sounds offensive or rude, why do you care what I think? I'm not taking your daughters to abortion clinics and telling them it's lots of fun and the number one choice. I'm not trying to get your Churches to have gay pride festivals. And I'm not polluting your commute with banners telling you what to think.

I respect my friends and family that are LOVING Christians. They know this doesn't apply to them. And maybe they are frustrated by some of these things too. I don't spout it off to be a prick, but I hate willful, hateful ignorance shrouded with the justification of religion, and I hate that these organizations are tax exempt and flaunting their ill-contrived messages in order to turn the tide.

This is not okay. It is NOT okay for the Archdiocese of Omaha to tell their faithful 'THIS is what you must think. THIS is how you must vote.' This religious indoctrination intertwined with politics is illegal and just morally and ethically wrong. Are you trying to inspire people of faith that live out the TRUE message of your Christ or do you aim to create armies of drones that get your political party of choice into office so you can turn this nation into what you want it to be?

Conservatives Using Idealism and Religion to Create Laws

Legislation in its purest form, if such a thing existed, is built on reality. Reality is defined as "The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them". An ideal is defined as "Satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable".

When lawmakers are given the task of creating legislation, one would hope that they are creating legislation built upon reality. Reality, ie, facts and statistics and situations that have occurred. Having ideals is fine and dandy, but if you are logical, you can understand that reality is different from an idealized world and therefore legislation should be in tune with reality and not based on ideals.

Ideals are often times interlaced with 'morality', which is sometimes mistakenly interpreted as 'religion'. Morality is defined as "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". Religion is defined as "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods" or "A particular system of faith and worship". If you are logical, you can understand that it is very possible that people without a religion can and do have morals.

If you happen to be a 'person of faith', you have beliefs based on ideals. Obviously, these ideals are important to you because you base your life and actions on them. It is highly likely that you would approve if 100% of the other people on Earth agreed with all of your ideals. However, you KNOW that this is not true and that other people have different beliefs about the world. If you are logical, you know that if you want to continue to hold your beliefs, you have to allow others the same ability.

Now, here's a biggie. Laws for citizens of a secular country must be fair to all citizens, and cannot promote a standard of life built off of the ideals of religion. Laws usually are based on morality, but again, morality is not tied to religion. If you are logical, you understand that the elected officials are to act on behalf of the groups in their jurisdiction, USING REALITY as the driving force, even if the elected officials have their own set of ideals they wish were reality. Told you it was a doozie. Why is that? Oh, because it's actually more of an ideal! IDEALLY, elected officials would act on the behalf of everyone in their jurisdiction and not just the people that think like them.

In fact, the very thought that a person should make decisions based on logic, rather than on emotions, religion or any other 'reason'/explanation, is itself an ideal. See, it sucks. Here I am, thinking logic will win, when logic is MY ideal. Logic is not always a reality. As Voltaire said "Common sense is not so common". Le sigh.

So, what's a person to do? Well, if you are part of the GOP, you create a platform that is based on ideals that do not correlate to reality. Apparently the lot of them will be gathering soon to create official statements on what their platform is, but here is the current GOP platform as related to abortion, thanks to this link.

THE SANCTITY AND DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE
Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion, permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by exacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties to health care providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives and [<---Repub typo] abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions - gender discrimination in its most lethal form - and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a revision of federal law 42 U.S.C. 289.92 to bar the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We also salute the many states that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose live, [<--Repub typo again] and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Okay, I'm going to do my non-partisan 'best' to examine the ideals present in this statement as well as the fallacies present because of reality. [cracks knuckles]

Ideal: "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."
Reality: I can see how they would have to make an Amendment to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution because Section 1 to the Fourteenth Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."(bold emphasis my own).

• Fetuses have not been born, so the Representatives would need to wave a magic wand and write up some fancy words to make it seem like a zygote/fetus/undeveloped-future-human-that-is-unable-to-exist-outside-the-womb is as important as fully developed homo sapiens living outside the womb, you know, the already born. (And that its rights supersede that of the mother/vessel of birth...gag)
• Besides, the possible implementation of such an idea as 'rights of a fetus' is so convoluted that it would be ridiculous to even attempt. Section 2 to the Fourteenth Amendment says "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." So if a fetus is now counted as a person, despite not having a birthday, at what time in the development of the embryo is its 'personhood' tallied so it can be allocated proper representation? And can you really have representatives for unborn people who don't even have a Social Security number or a birth certificate? Furthermore, if the fetus does not reach a birth and is miscarried, how do you document its death when it has yet to be born? Is the mother charged in the miscarriage or is it deemed 'accidental death'? You may scoff and say I'm being obtuse, but if you are going to count an unborn creature as a person, you are literally counting your eggs before they hatch. And why? What's the rush?
• The call that "protections apply to unborn children" or demand that undeveloped humans be treated as equals to the "persons born" is based on "the sanctity of human life and ... individual right to life" which stems from religious beliefs and therefore is not a fit, logical, nor sound basis for an amendment for the Constitution that governs people of varying or no religious beliefs. The implementation of such a demand does not benefit society, nor is it necessary, but is a knee-jerk reaction and a legislative attempt of religious people to force others to heed their morals or be punished. (Isn't God's surefire punishment enough? Or do you not trust your God to dole out the punishment for abortion?) The idea that you hold human life sacred ("sanctity of human life") is a religious notion that has no place in a government document. I had to be born first before my number was added to the population, so all those other fetuses just have to wait too. 
• P.S. Using the Declaration of Independence term "self-evident" in reference to your claim of "the sanctity of human life" is religious pandering. Sure, a few lines later it mentions "Creator", but really, it says "their Creator" but it doesn't say which Creator AND it does say "all men" so either it's a sexist document or we are supposed to infer that men means homo sapien both male and female AND that "Creator" can mean Lord Brahma, the Hindu God of Creation as well. You know, freedom to religion and all that. See The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights in which the U.S. government is prohibited from preferring one religion over another. I SHOULD be able to stop here because a ban on abortion is clearly a preference for Catholic/Christian-based religions and is therefore, including the proposed amendment, wait for it..... UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But I won't stop here because I'm only two sentences in to the GOP platform on abortion!

Please note: I DID stop there Thursday night and now, Sunday night, I'm gonna hack at it a little more. But maybe a little quicker this time, since this is already really freaking long.

Ideal: "We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."
Reality: This is an admission that they will stack the Judicial Court with religiously-biased judges. We all know that proclaiming the "sanctity of innocent human life" is thinly veiled wording trying to assert that fetuses are worth the amount of legislation conservative religious politicians are saying there are, when really it is an assertion that they, the mostly-male religious conservatives want to punish women who don't make the same choices they do. AND WHAT THE HELL ARE "TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES"?! This phrase is utterly disgusting because it tries to insinuate that this nation is built upon only one tradition and that all others are lacking in their worth. Their thought is one man, one woman and their biological progeny. But if you look at statistics, that 'family' is in the minority. As reported in Singled Out, in 1990, only 26% of households were comprised of married parents and children. So when Republicans keep up their war-cry of "traditional family values" they fail to see the numbers, the diverse composition of REAL families and the falseness of the idea that every family of mom, dad and kids that THINK the same way as the conservative religious Republicans who want to eliminate the values of the other 74% of families that don't fit the mold.

Ideal: "We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions - gender discrimination in its most lethal form - and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain;"
Reality: However, they DO call for legislation to ban same-sex marriages which causes pain for born children, ie, legally consenting adults, which is gender discrimination in its most obvious form AND based on religious beliefs which should have nothing to do with Civil Rights when deciding which adults can sign a marriage certificate. Duh.

Ideal: "We also salute the many states that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health protective clinic regulation." 
Reality: What this means, is that they don't believe women are capable of understanding that a fetus is a developing human so they really need to undergo a medically unnecessary probing to shame them and cause them physical pain and financial damage. Um, I'm pretty sure women seeking abortions are fully aware that the fetus will develop into a human, hence getting the abortion for whatever reason THEY decided while considering their options. And what the hell do the Republicans mean by "health protective clinic regulation"? 

Ideal: "and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy." 
Reality: Wait, what now? So, AS LONG AS women agree to have a child, you will support her because she does what you find "moral". But you want to criminalize abortion, which means you will be penalizing "women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy" because she chose an option with which you don't agree.

To all of the above, I say: PISS OFF. You are not allowed to create laws, appoint judges and just generally be snide asshats all on the basis of religion. This is a nation built on the backs of people from all walks of life, all nations, all creeds or no creeds. Just because there are large numbers of you who have gotten into office because of your supporters does not make it right, nor does it make it constitutional. Your ideals should be kept to your private and personal lives, meant to guide you in making decisions about your daily lives, NOT when creating legislation for a nation full of people who will be affected by your attempts at blanket morality. You CANNOT make others part of your religion by writing it into law. You will be endangering the women who seek abortions by creating out-of-touch policies that are beneficial only to your moral righteousness and your ego. Most people will tell you murder is wrong and that's why it's illegal. But people are still murdered, and the murderers are punished accordingly. A murder is quantifiable damage. An abortion is not in the same field.

No, abortion is not an awesome thing. But the women undergoing that procedure know it. Making abortions illegal will solve nothing and will create more problems. Those people who are anti-abortion will try to make any justification for the woman to birth the baby, whether she keeps it or not. "It's only nine months out of your life" "Put the baby up for adoption." "I'll take your baby!" Well, that sounds nice, but no, it's not just nine months. Pregnancy affects a woman's body, sometimes to her medical detriment, so it's so nice of you to be concerned, but she's the one who has to live with the medical bills. Adoption? Yes, the 114,562 children in the U.S. and Puerto Rico waiting for adoption or fostering would LOVE to be adopted and for the "I'll take your baby!" people, please refer to that last number.

P.S. If I was having an abortion, I would find it more responsible to abort the child than to risk that it would end up aging out of foster care without a home (or worse.... molestation, etc.) or possibly being raised by a religious conservative family of "traditional family values" which include condemning and endangering women they will never knowingly meet. And I don't need a "mandatory waiting period" to decide that: 12 years of Catholic schooling and at least 9 years outside of the system have allowed me plenty of time to see the Reality of Ideals. Boo.Yah.

A LAW TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL, in accordance with the tenets, beliefs, teachings, and/or ideals of certain religious groups, violates the clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution that state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and therefore, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. http://bit.ly/NEuQH2