first amendment

Adventures in Missing the Point, Part II

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

On Tuesday, Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) will introduce a bill aimed at cracking down on prescription drugs like Viagra that treat erectile dysfunction. Turner’s legislation would make men jump through certain hoops — such as psychological screenings — before they could obtain the meds. The bill follows FDA recommendations to determine the underlying causes of erectile dysfunction — but that’s certainly not the only reason Turner is putting the measure forward.

via Ohio Senate Bill Offers Male Lawmakers A Taste Of Their Own Medicine | TPM2012.

According to Turner:

“All across the country, including in Ohio, I thought since men are certainly paying great attention to women’s health that we should definitely return the favor,” Turner told TPM. Her bill is one of several pieces of legislation offered over the past several weeks by women lawmakers eager to prove a point about the raging contraception debate.

No, Ms. Turner, men aren’t ‘paying great attention to women’s health.’  Men and women, are paying attention to the Administration’s attempts to violate our 1st Amendment rights.

Yet again, some are intent on obfuscating the real issue.  The issue isn’t ‘women’s health.’  The issue is religious liberty.

Adventures in missing the point!

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

Rush Limbaugh slut comment reveals a double standard on sex – CSMonitor.com.

If I understand his argument right, Rush’s use of the term ‘slut’ reveals a double standard whereby women are promiscuous and men are ‘taking what’s rightfully ours.’  Perhaps, but maybe, just maybe, you’ve misunderstood the entire argument.

First, Rush said nothing about men, that I’m aware of.  So, this is an argument from silence.  Perhaps Rush would be just as harsh with men who are promiscuous.  It seems dubious to accuse of a double standard when, in fact, no double standard was evident.  Just because I say, “A=B,” doesn’t mean that “B ≠ C.”

Second, the author appears to be avoiding the actual context.  It seems Rush was attempting to be absurd.  Based Ms. Fluke’s testimony, he attempted to illustrate (very poorly, IMHO) some flaws in our thinking about this issue.  As I’ve written before, his choice of words was quite poor.  But, how does intentional absurdity reveal the double standard this guy speaks of?

Finally, this seems to be another attempt to ignore the real issue.  As an Evangelical Pastor, I believe extramarital sex is a sin.  But, this current debate about contraception has nothing to do with extramarital (nor even marital) sex.  It has everything to do with the First Amendment.

The real issue is whether or not the government is able to compel religious institutions to violate their religious convictions.  If so, then the Bill of Rights really means whatever the government says it means.  In which case, it means nothing at all.

I don’t expect those who do not hold to my convictions to live and act as I do.  I do expect the freedom to live and operate any ministry to which God calls me, according to my religious convictions and with no government interference.