Shop More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconimpersonalinfo: More from impersonalinfo


Featured in Collections

Political by VVraith

Journals, comments, and the like. by SiogaAgusArrachtaigh


More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
February 27, 2012
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
751
Favourites
21 (who?)
Comments
12
×
One day, way back in college, the Catholic chaplain heard me play the piano and offered me a position as an accompanist at his parish. I wasn't Catholic but I accepted anyway because I wanted the money. As far as jobs go, it wasn't much of one - I usually worked just one day a week and made $200 a month tops. But I was getting paid to do something I enjoyed and that was fun. Plus it was amusing in a weird sort of way watching the collection baskets get passed around at every mass and knowing that some of that money would soon make its way into my pocket.

What did I spend all that "Catholic" money on? More like what didn't I spend it on. With most of my room and board already included with tuition, I was free to buy - among other things - all sorts of alcohol, porn, satanic blackmetal (back when people actually bought music), slutty clothes, and - most memorably - an athame for my wiccan ex-girlfriend's 20th birthday (I did mention I wasn't Catholic, right?) And yes, since you all know where this is going, I bought condoms. And used them.

Of course, none of this affected my employment. Father Ron grew more dismayed every time he discovered more details of my life, and probably even regretted making the job offer in the first place. But I was polite enough not to let the rest of my life affect my appearance in church or my performance at work, and he was smart enough to realize that once the paycheck was signed, it was my money and he had no right to tell me what I could or couldn't spend it on.

Apparently this logic is lost on the Obama administration, whose Department of Health and Human Services seems hell-bent on requiring Catholic employers, over their own religious objections, to provide birth control for their employees. Supporters of the requirement say that it will keep Catholics from "forcing" their religion on anyone else. But, as my own experience demonstrates, you can work at a Catholic organization - even a church - and spend your pay on whatever degenerate lifestyle you choose, so long as it doesn't interfere with your work. In reality it's the government forcing its own secular worldview on private citizens - demanding that Catholics spend above and beyond what they're already paying their employees just to buy them free birth control.

The Catholic church has many arguments against contraception. Some of them are actually rather interesting. But contraception isn't the issue here. The government's action would be just as uncalled for if it were directed against Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or other religious individuals or organizations and demanding (under threat) that they violate equally important tenets of their belief. And if this mandate is allowed to stand, it's only a matter of time before other faiths are threatened in the same way.

Don't let the news fool you - there has been no "compromise" on this issue. As fate would have it, I have a story for that too. A few months into my "job," a close friend shocked me with the news that he and his girlfriend had been having sex, that she was pregnant, that he wanted her to have an abortion, and that he couldn't pay for it and had come to me because I always seemed to have lots of extra cash on hand. I turned him away. I still had all sorts of conflicting views on abortion at that point in my life - but when the time came to make a decision, I knew I just couldn't support what was about to happen.

Despite the weirdness of it all, I did still think of Cam as a friend. At least I did until he called me a week later and said he was in some unspecified "trouble" and needed $450 cash before a certain date. Of course he still needed it for his girlfriend's abortion and for some reason he thought I'd be more willing to lend him the money if he didn't specify what it was for. I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I'm not that stupid.

President Obama's compromise leaves all the essentials in place and changes nothing except for how and under what guise the money will be extorted for the exact same purpose. Clearly he thinks you are that stupid.

Please continue to fight this unjust and unconstitutional assault on our religious freedoms
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsullobog:
sullobog Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2014

lol funny story


I am a Catholic BTW

glad you had fun working as a pianist for the church

Reply
:iconflorendo09:
florendo09 Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2012
Wow this is Amazing God Bless you!

if USA Doesn't support us (Catholics) and other Christians then i'll call USA The United States of Atheism.
Reply
:iconkaizokushojo:
KaizokuShojo Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2012   Traditional Artist
The government just needs to stay out of people's pants. It's not the church's problem that their employees are having sex...:P It's not the government or taxpayer's problem, either. It's that individual's personal choice.
Reply
:iconimpersonalinfo:
impersonalinfo Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
It's not the church's problem that their employees are having sex.
It's not the church's problem that their employees are having sex.
It's not the church's problem that their employees are having sex.
It's not the church's problem that their employees are having sex.
It's not the church's problem that their employees are having sex.
It's not the church's problem that their employees are having sex.
It's not the church's problem that their employees are having sex.

HOLY SHIT
:iconfreeinternetplz:

you just condensed the entire debate into 11 words.
:iconbravoplz:
Reply
:iconmbrsart:
mbrsart Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Very good! We can't sit here and allow the Government to dictate what religious entities must and must not do.

One of the dumber arguments I've heard is, "The employer isn't paying for anything; the insurance company is." Pardon my French, but listen, asshat, do you have any idea how employer-sponsored health insurance works? The employer pays the insurance company money to keep premiums low. If they didn't, employers wouldn't be offering to partially sponsor health insurance! I work in this industry; don't you dare use your liberal elitism to tell me that you know more about employer-sponsored insurance than I do.

That brings me to another boneheaded liberal argument: "It saves insurance companies money to pay for contraception due to the cost of childbirth." As if every kid is an accident? As if the only reason people have kids is because they couldn't afford the pill?

"The Republicans are trying to block access to contraceptives!" Steaming pile! If we wanted to block access, we would pass laws that made it illegal to buy condoms, the pill, etc. If you can't afford the pill and don't want a kid, I have a solution: either don't have sex or make your boy run to the nearest 7-Eleven and get a box of rubbers.
Reply
:iconionosphere-negate:
Ionosphere-Negate Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2012
O'bummer is getting way to big for his britches.
Reply
:iconsionnadehr:
SionnaDehr Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
:clap:
Such a smart person!!
Reply
:iconbluephoenixx:
BluePhoenixx Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
"In reality it's the government forcing its own secular worldview on private citizens."

That's exactly what I was thinking the whole time up unit you made the point yourself. Well said, and great use of personal storied to back it up. You hit the nail on the head here and I honestly couldn't agree more. Obama and the rest of the Democrats in power really do think we're that stupid... and honestly, the people who buy into it deserve the thought because they REALLY ARE that stupid.

I don't have any moral objection to contraceptives but I can see where this is headed. People like to think that the first amendment is there to protect the state from the churches, but in reality, it's quite the opposite. Sure, it is there to make sure no single church has power over the government, but if you just read the damn thing, you would see that it says, "The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion..." If anything, that is doing far more to keep the government out of our churches... Don't even get me started on the "separation of church and state" line. THAT'S NOT EVEN IN THE CONSTITUTION. Besides that, it's separation OF church and state not separation of church FROM state.

I could seriously go on forever on this subject.
Reply
:iconionosphere-negate:
Ionosphere-Negate Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2012
"Don't even get me started on the "separation of church and state" line. THAT'S NOT EVEN IN THE CONSTITUTION. Besides that, it's separation OF church and state not separation of church FROM state."

That clause (Establishment) does exist, and actually, that means that the federal gov't cannot make any law that places any religion over or under another. It's just there to prevent favoritism. Nothing more, nothing less, and there are a lot of fucktards who get that wrong. Like that incident in that on college.
Reply
:iconbluephoenixx:
BluePhoenixx Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
You're going to have to point that clause out to me because I have never read anywhere in the constitution. The phrase, separation of church and state was actually in a letter and it wasn't even those exact words anyways. I would seriously like to know where it says anywhere the words, "separation of church and state," in that order exactly as everyone repeats it. I know what the first amendment says though and I totally agree with the rest of your statement.
Reply
Add a Comment: