By now we all have heard about Rush Limbaugh, his controversial statements, the loss of sponsors and his subsequent apology. That Rush went overboard, I will not dispute. If you listen to him with any frequency you know that he uses absurd scenarios and hyperbole to make his points. Sometimes it works, sometimes the joke runs flat, and in this case it dropped like a lead balloon. I would go further and say that he was ham handed and cruel. All the same, I believe in free speech. I also believe in the marketplace, and the marketplace has spoken. Free speech is not free; there is a cost to speaking your mind, and he is presently paying it. The only question is what the final tab will be.
But lost in the midst of all the furor over the personal attacks on the young woman in question is the larger point he was trying to make, which was correct even if his methods were not. The bottom line question is; what compelling public interest does the government have in subsidizing this woman's, or any woman or man's, recreational activities, which is what sex has pretty much become to many in the 21st century? I've struggled to find a polite way of putting this, and I've failed, so please excuse the crudeness, but since when is getting a little action on a Saturday night a Constitutionally protected right? I was always told that the Church needs to change Her teaching on artificial contraception because there are all these families with too many children who can't afford to have any more (maybe in 1940 you could argue that, but considering present day birthrates it's a hard sell). Now I'm being told that She needs to because hooking up is a human right.
I don't know anything about Sandra Fluke's personal life, and I don't care to know unless she wants to go to confession. She did choose to go before a public hearing and testify, which opens her up to scrutiny, though not insult; remember what I said, free speech is not free. Nonetheless this is not about her, and that was Rush Limbaugh's mistake. This is about religious liberty and freedom of conscience, the government's attempt to dictate and coerce the consciences of its citizens, and as he pointed out, the individual's need to be responsible for their own choices without going to the government to subsidize their private life. This is also about artificial contraception, as much as we don't want to hear it.
We opened a Pandora's Box when that little pill was unleashed on the world fifty years ago. We once and for all separated sex from responsibility. Self control was taken out of the picture. A key incentive to remain faithful, chaste and pure was removed from our lives. Along with helping families regulate births the pill was also supposed to empower women, or so the feminist movement said. But has it? A few questions: On a nightly basis are contracepting women under less pressure from husbands and boyfriends to have sex when they may not want to, or more than before? Are women more respected for their value as person's in the popular culture and less like sex objects than in 1960? In the wider society have we seen a decrease in the number of abortions, as proponents of the pill promised? or in the divorce rate? or in the prevalence of STDs? or in sex crimes against women?
There were people with good intentions, and families in truly dire straits that they were trying to help when the pill came on the scene in 1960 (I would also argue there were more sinister forces trying to pursue social engineering, but that's a story for another time). In spite of all the good intentions in the world once the pill became available it was impossible to limit its use to lawfully married couples. It was the modern day fruit in the garden that could not be resisted. What can't be forgotten in all this is that the sex drive is potent; I forget if it was Aquinas or Augustine who said it was even more powerful than the desire for food and water. The ability to master and direct our drives is part of what makes us responsible human beings. But now there is no apparent reason to develop self discipline in the sexual realm, and there is nothing that makes sexual intercourse something unique in human experience. There is nothing that makes it worth waiting for, saving your self for, or reserving for a privileged relationship. Artificial contraception, along with no fault divorces, have brought us to the disintegration of traditional marriage; we would not be having a discussion about gay "marriage" if the twin hinges of procreation and permanency hadn't been removed from the essential understanding of what marriage is all about. This has also helped contribute to an overall coarsening of the culture. I would argue we are less humane today because we are "free" to be inhuman and exercises even less self control than a dog or a cat, since even they usually wait for their fertile period to mate.
There are those who want to say that the issue is religious liberty, and cynical politicians who are pushing an issue they believe they can use as a wedge to limit other other First Amendment rights. I agree with that. There are those who want to make a villain of Rush Limbaugh. It's your right; condemn his insulting language, stop listening, and stop patronizing his sponsors, for that matter. I believe in the marketplace, it works. But don't ignore his underlying message, which is still true. And don't be so quick to dismiss the long term harm the contraceptive mentality has had on our society.
No comments:
Post a Comment