Does it seem ironic to anyone else that, although fundamental Christians complain the loudest and most frequently that they’re being persecuted for their beliefs, they remain the only group in our society whose beliefs are constantly made into law or govern legislature? The unfortunate thing is, they give a terrible name to all Christians, because this isn’t a “Christian” characteristic per se… rather, it is a characteristic of social tyrant dictators who hide behind a highly transparent veil of religion.
Today, “religious freedom” earned a huge win (since Christianity is obviously the only religion which deserves to be free) when the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby was a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act arguing that a legal requirement of family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage of contraception was a violation of legally-protected religious freedom.
The fact that anyone even agreed to this in theory, let alone to put it into law, is pure bullshit. Commanding a Christian woman to take contraception if it is against her beliefs is a violation of religious freedom… having a corporation take care of its employees’ insurance (regardless of what this covers) is not a violation of religious freedom. An employer’s religious beliefs (especially if it is an employer of a large corporation) should have no bearing at all on the personal lives of the employees of said employer. Requiring that the employer restrict their damn beliefs to their own life is not violating their religious freedom. People need to understand what this phrase means, stop throwing it around whenever they aren’t getting their narrow-minded way, and we as a society need to stop validating its inaccurate use.
It still baffles me how much unnecessary attention is collectively given to the choices of women when it comes to their own bodies. We’re living in the 21st Century, but despite all our assurances that women are no longer treated like the property of men, this is really just a modern version of this. What this ruling has done is give employees the legal right to say to their female employees, “My Christian beliefs do not agree with what you do sexually or reproductively, and I therefore choose to restrict the ease with which you can do it, despite it having nothing to do with me.”
This is nothing more than the legal enabling of nutjob fundamentalist Christians to not only impose power over women, but shove their beliefs down society’s throat, cut and dry. Those who claims otherwise are bullshitting no one but themselves. The only argument in favour of this Hobby Lobby nonsense seems to be “If an employer doesn’t morally approve of their employees’ actions, they shouldn’t have to pay for it.” In response, allow me to raise three points:
- An employer’s “approval” of their employees should be solely restricted to professional approval… morality has nothing to do with it. If a woman decides to pop Yaz, Seasonale or Plan B ten times a day, every single day and it doesn’t affect her professional abilities in the workplace, your approval has shit-all to do with it.
- These people who are so against contraceptives are the very same pro-lifers who are rabidly against abortion. You don’t want women to have abortions yet you won’t facilitate the power to avoid having an unwanted pregnancy… yeah, makes total sense.
- The religious basis for this law is that it prevents the perpetuation of human life. I assure you, this law has absolutely nothing to do with perpetuating life, and everything to do with ensuring that women conform to a patriarchal ideal of feminine ethics. If this had anything to do with life and birth control, the proponents of the law would ensure that men were just as morally bound to Biblical teachings. But wait, what’s that? These Hobby Lobby-protected corporations still cover the insurance of vasectomies? That’s odd. So, despite the claims that these employers are so morally devastated at the thought of mechanically preventing conception, they will still gladly approve of men being surgically empowered to shoot blanks. Silly me, I forgot that God only cared about the sexual proclivities of women, and any true follower of Christ would allow a man to go screwing all over the place without any worry of impregnating women, while Christian law insists that a woman either remain celibate outside of marriage or give Mother Nature complete control over when her uterus becomes rented out. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when the archangel, Gabriel, visited Mary to tell her of God’s plan to impregnate her, even she had a choice in the matter. Therefore, if God can respect a woman’s right to choose, who the fuck is the Supreme Court to rule otherwise?