For those of you who are just reading for the first time check out this post from last week.
So I have been leaving comments in Amy Proctor’s site about this, and my feelings on the subject. I pointed out that nearly every argument that she made could be applied towards banning a religion from the post, provided that someone else objected to it.
She responded with:
“Right, Skippy, banning the sexualization of women for profit on posts and banning religion are one in the same. I don’t know why i didn’t see it sooner.”
Actually, it is the same thing.
It is the exact same thing.
It is allowing one group to look at another and say, “You can’t do that because I don’t like it”. It is saying “You shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions that I don’t agree with.”
And if religion gets a free ride, what then happens when someone makes a religion around porn? There is already one based around the Jedi Knights. So its more probable that you would think. I’m sure the argument would become “No, only real religions get protected status”. Call me on it if I’m wrong, Amy.
But the Army, for better or for worse, can and does limit religious expression on post. Rastafarian’s don’t smoke pot, Wiccans could barely practice and not have their sacred items confiscated, and I’m positive that no one will be sacrificing a POW to Tláloc to ensure a good rainy season and bountiful harvest anytime soon. Heck, I’m pretty sure that the Westboro Baptist Church wouldn’t be welcome on most bases.
Now, people have tried arguing with her on facts. The damage that she claims porn will cause has not materialized in societies where porn is accepted. Nor have these kinds of harm shown up in societies that have newly accepted porn.
But facts would not sway her.
And people tried logic. They pointed out that ink and paper can’t hurt someone. That magazines sealed in plastic don’t actually effect her simply by existing. The whole “they are harmful on post but safe if stored five minutes away” borders on superstition. That, or the belief that they are somehow radioactive. (Completely inappropriate side note: What superpowers would you get from a radioactive adult magazine? Defend your choices.)
Logic would not budge her.
And so I am left with my last, and perhaps strongest tool.
As Amy has pointed out, people who claim to support the military and our troops must also support the families of our soldiers. There are a growing number of soldiers who also have families. And our soldiers must be secure in the knowledge that their wives, and more importantly, their children, will receive adequate care and protection at all times. A soldier who is insecure about his family’s well-being is a soldier that cannot focus on his job. And when soldiers cannot focus on their jobs it can lead to unnecessary waste, accidents, and even death.
And so, I am forced to draw your attention to a growing danger facing our military families.
“But Skippy”, you might say, “Catholicism is a religion. How can you accuse a religion of being dangerous to the military family?”
And so I will demonstrate the harm.
First of all, Catholics teach symbolic cannibalism. It’s right there during Mass, where everyone can see it. Now, if a consenting adult wishes to partake in such activities during their free time, that is their right. But it should certainly be limited to off-post, because non-Catholics shouldn’t have to have their children exposed to the idea that it is okay to eat people.
Secondly, Catholics drink wine as part of their religious services. Again, adults should be allowed to whatever they like, but there are children on Army bases now. And children shouldn’t be encouraged to drink. Because alcohol has been positively linked to alcoholism.
The current leader of the Catholic Church is a former Hitler Youth. An organization that teaches that Nazis are the infallible representatives of God’s will is on our Army bases? Goodness I should hope not.
And many people worry, justifiably I might add, that certain practices on base might harm our children. But who has time to worry about ink and glossy paper when there are children who have been irreparably harmed by Catholicism? By having turgid priest injected directly into their buttholes. Which the Church condoned by covering up. And then assigning the priests to go work with other children. I don’t think that child rapists, or their apologists, belong in the same places as our soldier’s families.
And this is just the modern, current era issues. Let’s not forget the Crusades, institutionalized torture, the Inquisition, witch trials, the selling of indulgences, religious suppression, the consumption of fish on Friday, and genocide. It’s like a laundry list of unacceptable behavior.
Now I’m not saying that soldiers shouldn’t be allowed to practice their faith as they see fit. After all, they are adults and their free time is theirs to do with as they please. I’m just pointing out that common sense dictates that the behavior of the Catholic Church is incompatible with military families.
And really, is it such a big deal to make all of the Catholics go off-post to spend their free time in the manner that they so choose? I would think that the well-being of the children should definitely come first, before the selfish desires of the Catholic Faithful.