It’s open season on the LDS church, says the headline in this WAPO article.

The piece foreshadows, I fear, of what is to come — effort to portray Mormons as weirdly out of step and unmodern, and by implication, Romney as being unfit for the presidency…

But if you read the article, the writer isn’t parroting the usual anti Mormon claims that Joseph Smith lied about the golden tablets, or saying that the “secret ceremonies” of the Temple are a copy of Masonic initiation, or even that the LDS ideas of the concept of God, Christ, and afterlife differ significantly from that believed by most Christian churches.

No, what we are seeing is that the LDS belief that the family is important, and even sacred, will be the point man for ridiculing traditional families:

So what is the point then of the piece, which goes on to paint Mormons as condescending and backward thinking when it comes to gender? (“These doctrinally-defined gender roles aren’t entirely unique — they’ve been preached by various sects for centuries — but Mormons have proven uniquely unwilling to bend them to fit modern times.”)

The LDS, like the Catholic and Muslim faiths, or like secular Confucian philosophy, or like most “primitive” tribes,  saw the family as the basic structure of society (not the individual, and not the government). It was family who cared for you when you were sick, who fed you when you were pregnant and unable to work, and who cared for you when you were old and feeble.

The sexual revolution, which delinked sexual expression from baby making, also led to the idea of marriage as an emotional partnership, to be dissolved when the love goes sour, not as a contract that stays viable “for better for worse, for richer and poorer, in sickness and in health”.

And therein lies the real problem of the sexual revolution:Yes, that nasty biological fact that women have babies.

President Obama once said he wanted to make a world where his girls would have the same opportunities as boys.Equal work for equal pay. Fine. But what about outside of the workplace?

So how can our girls be as free as our boys? Stop them from having babies. A childless woman is free to work full time to support herself (and let corporations have a larger pool of available workers to hire).

Which is why President Obama sees birth control as part of his health care plan a desirable policy.

I am not blaming this on the President, who is confronted with a country already decimated by the fruits of the sexual revolution, with it’s promiscuity, it’s view of babies as a “choice”, not a gift of God,  and rejection of the responsibility of marriage.

This frees women quite a lot, and since I am old enough to remember miserable couple stuck in marriages they could not leave, I see loosening divorce law has given a lot of people freedom from misery. But I’m not sure the “easy divorce” and living together is a better solution. Children need the stability of family to grow up right, and then there is the problem of all those aging people who wanted freedom from family responsibility and now find they are  without anyone to care for them.

Such freedom ends up empowering the government, who now has to pay someone to do what traditional families use to do: care for the vulnerable family members.

Some academic feminists see the institution of the family as evil, something that represses women.

In contrast, there are a lot of feminists (including Betty Frieden) who insisted feminism was not about destroying the “patriarchal” institution of marriage, but in strengthening equality in marriage, and in instituting government policies to support women so that they could both work and raise a family without neglecting either.
This idea is closer to the feminism of Catholics and Mormons, both of which tend to educate their women and encourage them to use their talents for the greater good of mankind (either formally at a job, by caring for the family, or by volunteer work, as was done by Anne Romney, or all of the above…despite the cliches, the Mormon women work outside the home at a rate similar to their gentile sisters).

The difference is that these churches remind them not to see their work as more important than the work of raising children.

Even after thirty years of cultural attacks against the traditional family and government/business economic policies (e.g. exporting jobs) that result in women being forced to work to support their families, the family is not completely broken.,

Despite the terrible stories you read, the census reports show that most children still live in two parent families, and a quarter of these families have a stay at home mother.

But this is still the tip of the iceburg: because it also shows over 20 percent of these intact families had a grandparent staying with them.

For in reality, however, it is the extended family who still does this care-giving: not just of children, but of the sick and disabled who are tied to you by links of marriage and biology. (and in this, for LGBT who may not have the option of marriage, this sometimes means “close friends”).

With our aging population, it means a lot of folks, especially women, now care for not only their children, but their aging parents.

 65.7 million caregivers make up 29% of the U.S. adult population providing care to someone who is ill, disabled or aged.
52 million caregivers provide care to adults (aged 18+) with a disability or illness.

And then there is the problem of grandparents raising grandchildren, often because dad is AWOL and mom is addicted to drugs or otherwise incapacitated:

In the most recent Census Bureau statistics, 2.4 million of the nation’s families are maintained by grandparents who have one or more of their grandchildren living with them–an increase of 400,000 (19 percent) since 1990. These families comprise 7 percent of all families with children under 18.

There is a need for governments to support the family in it’s traditional role of caring for the sick, young, and elderly.

But this is not the same thing as saying that ONLY the government is responsible for their care.

This is the problem I have with President Obama: that too many of those around him are busy ridiculing those who follow the old rules.

But what is worse, is that some bureaucrats appointed by President Obama are behind regulations that negatively affect the “intermediate institutions” (including churches) who provide much of the support for families in need. Oh, they won’t be attacked for the good that they do, but because some of these NGO (non governmental organizations) are churches and their related instituions, who refuse to approve of what they still insist is irresponsible (aka “sinful”) behavior.

Which brings us to the real war that isn’t getting much coverage in the media: Obama’s war against the Catholic church. Bishop’s statement HERE:

What is at stake is whether America will continue to have a free, creative, and robust civil society—or whether the state alone will determine who gets to contribute to the common good, and how they get to do it.

Religious believers are part of American civil society, which includes neighbors helping each other, community associations, fraternal service clubs, sports leagues, and youth groups.

All these Americans make their contribution to our common life, and they do not need the permission of the government to do so. Restrictions on religious liberty are an attack on civil society and the American genius for voluntary associations…

This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon, or Muslim issue. It is an American issue.

Under Obamacare, we are seeing a government policy that is destroying non government agencies, the so called “intermediate institutions”. And the two largest groups affected? The Catholic church, with it’s extensive web of schools, hospitals, social service agencies, and the LDS church, where the so called “stay at home moms” often are the backbone of caring for the sick and indigent of the church (and their gentile neighbors).

Hence one can see the reason that Obamacare is deliberately targeting Catholic institutions.

We already have the elites decrying that Catholic hospitals won’t do their bidding and a government reimbursement system that makes it  economically “necessary” to merge with secular hospitals who oppose Catholic values, or even sell them to corporations who will use them for profit making, as they did in Massachusetts.

If the Obamacare rule is not revoked, Catholic hospitals may still exist, but they won’t be Catholic. Who will benefit? The huge medical corporations, of course.

And it will mean one less obstacle to implementing mandates, when the government bureaucrats make “non treatment decisions” for “futile care” if your “QALY” is too low.

Yet none of this is being discussed in the media.

We saw how quickly a compliant mainstream media twisted the attack against religious freedom into a story about a “war against women”.

Similarly, we will see a huge outcry of attacks on the LDS church under the guise of a war against women, but in reality it is an attack on the traditional family and it’s defenders.

Or maybe the real reason for the fake propaganda and the racial agitation in the Zimmerman case wasn’t about justice for a dead teenager, or even about whether we should carry guns. I suspect it is laying the foundation for a future campaign that will  attack the LDS church for it’s past racism (never mind that the LDS is now a worldwide church with members from all races, including 100 thousand members in Nigeria alone).

Why my paranoia? That strange little question back in January by a Democratic “reporter” about birth control. At the time, it just seemed strange: in retrospect, with the recurrent “war on women” stories, it seems to be part of a well organized plan of attack to win the election.

So you are now warned. If you still agree with Confucius that the family is the most important institution, or agree with Paul that promiscuity is an immature way of approaching sex, and agree with Plato that self control is part of being an adult, or with most cultures that being an adult mean accepting responsibility for your family and loved ones, you are now “unwilling to bend them to fit modern times”, and the enemy.

Thereby writing off not only Republicans but Blue Dog Democrats as “the enemy.

Sigh.

——————————–

Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the Philippines.

Be Sociable, Share!