Reproductive rights and the church

       Attention: if you have a short attention span skip ahead to the conclusion; then become angry because you do not understand where it came from.  This will likely be a long one.
       There has recently been some to-do over the government's insistence that employers pay for birth control.  The Catholic Church, as was expected, became indignant.  See, they run the second largest social services charity in the United States.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities)  Care to guess the largest?  The U.S. government!  Hooray for you, you got it right.  Keep in mind the two largest charities as you read.  The "compromise", which was laughable, at best, was that insurance companies pay for it.
       I say this is laughable because, as anyone who works in healthcare knows, most hospitals of decent size, are self-insured.  The Catholic Charities is easily of sufficient size.  So if their insurers pay for it... oh wait what does self-insured mean again?  The other angle to laugh from, is that insurance companies are better off paying for birth control.  Recent errors in packaging aside (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/birth-control-recall-norgestimat-ethinyl-estradiol-tablets_n_1304950.html), birth control is by far cheaper than the birth, and subsequent healthcare of a child.  That is to say insurance companies have been covering birth control to a greater degree lately, for purely financial reasons.
       The separation of church and state is a two way street.  Catholic Charities is completely within their rights to not cover birth control, on moral grounds.  Especially figuring that it is cheaper to cover birth control than to not.  The people who work there are free to work elsewhere, should they object.  That is the idea behind a free market.  If I object to any aspect of how I'm treated at work, I can leave any time.

       Now to the other part of the joke.  The issue of "reproductive rights"  Someone's reproductive rights are violated when they are told they are not allowed to produce offspring.  They are violated when they are forced to produce offspring.  They are not violated when they are expected to pay for their own Norgestimate.
       By that logic, as a firearm owner, my employer should be required to pay for my gun safe.  Allow me to explain.  I have made a choice to engage in an activity that I am not legally compelled to engage in.  Gun ownership = Sex, in this argument.  The safety measure to prevent unintended consequences should, under this logic, be paid for by someone other than the person who made the choice to engage in said activity, in this case my employer.  Birth control = gun safe.  It sounds idiotic when you look at it from the gun standpoint, because it is idiotic from the birth control side.

       We are then left with two questions.  "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?"; and "Why are they allowing it to become a debate about reproductive rights?"  First we will address the latter.  They are turning it into an issue of reproductive rights because it brings high-profile attention from people who will win that argument.  Bear in mind that it never was about reproductive rights.  Next, let's look at the first question; "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?"  Remember how they are the second largest charity provider.  Why does McDonald's charge less than Burger King?  To try to eliminate the competition.  Ask a Communist: remove religion and people will have only government to cling to for charity.

       Now if you'll excuse me, my tinfoil hat is interfering with my computer...

The Evangelical Atheist.

       I have a friend who is an avowed atheist.  Most people who know him do not know this.  Not because he hides it, but because, like most normal people, it just doesn't come up much in his conversations.  Most atheists are fairly quiet on the topic unless asked, just like most Christians, most Buddhists, most Jews, most Muslims, Wiccans, etc.  Most people don't throw out opinions on potentially sensitive issues.  Most won't share unless directly asked.
       This is not about them.  This is not a critique of atheism.  Atheism, believe it or not, is a religious viewpoint.  It is therefore a personally held belief (or lack thereof).  It is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  Unless you are "that guy".  You know who you are.  The one who just has to "correct" people who are discussing religion, or God, or anything of that nature.
       There is only one objection most people of one religion, raise against another.  The need some members have to "convert" you, to their way of thinking.  Evangelism is annoying, pig-headed, ignorant behavior, that assumes no-one else's view could possibly be correct.  To evangelize, in the modern world, is the most insufferable kind of behavior.  We all have access (in the first world anyway) to all the information we require to make an informed decision about our belief in the God, or gods of our choosing.
       The only time that behavior is worse, is when it is embodied by an atheist.  That's right, atheists can be evangelical.  We have all met at least one.  "What is wrong with you?  How can someone, who is otherwise so smart, believe in God?"  Now aside from the obvious flaw in that logic, (smart person disagrees with me on only one single point, yet they are obviously wrong here) it is also indicative of someone who is incapable of either empathy, or the ability to even value another's opinion.  Something akin to a sociopath.
       Pascal's Wager aside, (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/) (scroll down to the decision matrix for a quick shot) there is no need to try to convert believers into non-believers.  For someone to have faith in anything, despite the world functioning the way it does; and despite the number of people who believe something else, means that one more yammering moron will not convince them otherwise.  So stop trying.  If you are right, and there is nothing else, be content with being right.  But I will contend that, just as in religious circles, evangelism is a sign of weak faith.  You need others to believe you are right in order to believe it yourself.  Belief that requires validation, is not belief.  It is trying to convince yourself by convincing others.
       I will state again, I do not think this of all atheists.  Mostly, they are a good lot.  But the ones who feel a RELIGIOUS NEED, to CONVERT me to their way of thinking need a psychological examination.  (And yes, I fell the same about religious types, thanks for asking.)  It is comical to hear someone evangelize about the lack of a religion.  Those people need a name, so I am humbly suggesting the title above.  "The Evangelical Atheist."