Foreword: this is an overeaction. Be warned.
I read an article earlier today in the Metro (free newspaper, hence this being a major over-reaction) about people’s ability to freely practice religion. I’m thinking “Well shazbot, that’s no good! What could that possibly mean?” So I took a look at the rest of the article.
Just so you know, the article was focused in the States. Which stereotypically makes this easy to predict.
The article says the the roman catholic population in the U.S have started a campaign of “prayer vigils and rallies to fight what they consider government attacks on religious freedom.”
Well, that’s a pretty serious accusation, right? What are they basing it on, you say?
Funding for birth control. It’s old news, but there it is. They think that the government is impairing their ability to practice religion through funding of the pill.
First, let’s look at the definition of impairment/impaired, cause you guys obviously can’t use a dictionary:
Adjective:Having a disability of a specified kind: “hearing-impaired children”.
Noun:The state or fact of being impaired, esp. in a specified faculty: “memory impairment”.
Synonyms: damage – deterioration – injury
Thank you Google.com, you beautiful repository of knowledge and wisdom, for providing us with the definitions a child could have provided had they been asked.
Religious freedom is the idea that you, i.e YOURSELF, can practice whatever religion/beliefs/cults you want without hurting someone. It’s nice, it’s simple, and it’s courteous. That’s also totally the best thing ever, ’cause I want to practice my beliefs freely too. It’s my right and privilege, even in another country.
But can one of you (i.e those against the pill because it restricts you ability to go to a motherfuckin’ church) tell me how the pill is stopping you/impairing you from going to your parish/mosque/temple? Did it hire bodyguards? Did their lobbyist hire some goons to block the road? Did the pill steal your Bible/Koran/___?
THEN YOU CAN STILL PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION. There is literally nothing stopping you from practicing being a Roman Catholic or a Jedi should someone take the pill. Using game-theory terms, a person taking the pill is a non zero-sum relationship, meaning that there is nothing lost from someone taking the pill. The pharmacy gets money, the woman gets to practice sexual freedom the same way men do if she feels like it, and you can continue to read your bible. Everyone WINS.
Why is it that the instant something goes against a religious idea, a bunch of whacknuts say it “destroys the sanctity of life” or something when all it does is enrich it (i.e, Life). Choice, which is what the pill gives, enriches life. They have the freedom to practice that choice. Your choice, the choice to practice your religion freely or not, also enriches life, and needs to be allowed. This is a lack of impairment and impediment, it actually is the definition of freedom.
- The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
- Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
Your choice to be an asshole, boys and girls, does not. What you propose, you ignorant bricks, is that you take away someone’s ability to have a choice, thereby removing the richness of someone’s life, harming their life. Actually, that pretty much says that you’re cool with subjugation and domination of their choice, which means you’re restricting freedom. Take another look at the word.
So, in closing, before making stupid statements like that, for the love of your god, please read a dictionary first. It makes you look really, REALLY stupid.