As a self identified progressive and spiritual person I find myself constantly perplexed by the contradictions I see in the Christian neoconservative movement. I understand that because our views are different I will never fully understand their position on any issue but what has really gotten to me this week is the disconnect between their righteous indignation of sex and their tolerance of the current administration’s nuclear policy.
Let’s look at the argument for abstinence. They say there is no such thing as safe sex but they have no trouble proclaiming the safety of new nuclear weapons. Sex is never safe because condoms are only 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of HIV. RRW is safe despite the 100% likelihood that testing these nuclear weapons will put more cancer causing uranium into our water shed system depleting our earth and spreading disease.
What’s the likelihood these weapons will have to be tested? I say the chances are as good as they are that at least 10 teenagers will engage in sex before they graduate high school; in other words, very high changes indeed. New nuclear weapons will inevitably have to be tested because otherwise those who plan using them will have no idea how they work. If neoconservatives believe the risk of sex with condoms is so great, how can they not see the risk in new nuclear weapons?
Of course, we know that the abstinence only program is not about disease it’s about god’s will. God, apparently, does not think people should engage in sex unless it’s for procreation, the creation of life. They believe the lives of people are the most important thing to protect. They, neoconservatives, go so far as to say that a fetus is a life and must be protected by law. This fetus, which must be protected at all cost, is most at risk from nuclear fallout and uranium seeping into the water system. Look no further than birth defect rates in Ukraine for evidence. Infant mortality, debilitating birth defects, and increased infertility have left this country with a declining population after the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl. Even with all the horrible things nuclear material does to babies in the womb, I never saw Jerri Fallwell at an anti-nukes rally.
Only talking about sex and babies is really missing the main point. Nuclear weapons, whether new or old, are designed to kill people; people who, according to the faithful, were put here by a god that loves them. Neoconservatives seem to believe that god has favorites: fetuses, Americans, and Christians. They will tout the importance of saving lives from abortion and then proclaim we should use our nuclear weapons to kill the brown people for having nuclear weapons (which they are not sure they have).
Do you see the disconnect here, or am I crazy? I work with all sorts of religious types whom I respect for their beliefs, even if I don’t hold them myself. My mother, the priest, believes that god put us on this earth to be in community with one another and in doing so we are in community with god. All religious fundamentalists seem to believe the opposite – their sole purpose is to break up communities by drawing arbitrary lines to suit their taste. Life is sacred – as long as it’s a life we agree with. God created the earth – but, it is not our responsibility to be stewards of that earth. Science goes against gods will – unless that science enables us to kill people who do not believe the same things as us. It’s infuriating and I challenge any fundamentalist out there to hit me back with some of your hate speech – tell me why you think war is so good and nuclear weapons are so necessary. Then tell me why god supports you. I’d love to demonstrate your ignorance live and in blog.