Showing posts with label culture wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture wars. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

A Fit of Pique on mindless utterances & deeds of the Religious Right



by Edd Doerr 

John Rafferty is the long time president of the Secular Humanist Society of New York and editor and writer for its excellent newsletter, PIQUE.

 If you have not already read his 2013 book, A Fit of Pique: Dispatches from the Culture Wars, let me suggest that you order a copy while they last.

 Here’s what I said about the book in a plug on page 2:

 “John Rafferty’s refreshing, wide-ranging writings for Pique are comparable to those of Mark Twain or Ambrose Bierce. A Fit of Pique is a delightful garden of gems, a garden richly fertilized by the droppings – er, mindless utterances and deeds of the Religious Right.”

If you like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert or George Carlin, you’ll like Rafferty’s 224-page opus. See  also an online youtube interview.

John's Self Reported Background:
a philosophical humanist all my life, and became an active one when I joined the Secular Humanist Society of New York in 1997. Over the next several years I became a regular contributor to the SHSNY newsletter, PIQUE, and joined the SHSNY Board of Directors in 2003. I became the 

Editor of PIQUE in 2004, and in 2007 was elected President of the Society, positions I still hold.

In 2012 I will assume the Chairmanship of Reasonable New York, a consortium of eleven New York-area freethought organizations (including New York Society for Ethical Culture, Center For Inquiry-NYC, and New York City Skeptics, as well as SHSNY) that work together to advance the cause of reason and science both here and nationally.
I am a professional writer, and have been all my life. The hours are generally good, most people can’t do what I do, and the work involves no heavy lifting.
After college, the army and jobs as a social worker, bartender, junior-high-school teacher and free-lance “true-adventure” writer for pulp men’s magazines, I became a copywriter in the advertising department of Esquire Magazine. I left to be associate creative director of a small advertising agency, then director, and in 1972 started my own firm, an agency specializing in magazine advertising and public relation
Since dissolving that business in 1988 (the desktop revolution, which I celebrate personally, was doing me in professionally), I have made my living as a copywriter and free-lance creative director, while editing newsletters on scientific equipment, archaeology, and (pro bono, of course) secular humanism.

I am a graduate of Queens College, SUNY (B.A., Philosophy, 1959), and was a New York State Regents Graduate Fellow at The New School for Social Research (1959-61) studying under distinguished humanist Horace Kallen (Secularism is the Will of God), but left (marriage, a child, only one income) before earning my M.A. Currently I am in a three-year graduate-level program in Humanist Leadership conducted by the Humanist Institute.
I am an active member of The Players, America’s oldest theatrical club.
I am four times a father (best job I ever had), eight a grandfather, and live happily in midtown Manhattan with my wife, the nonpareil painter and environ-artist Donna Marxer.

You can get a copy of the book,  while they last, for $15 directly from John Rafferty, 141 E. 56th St., NY, NY 10022-7715.

A collection of a decade's worth of his essays, amusements, and outraged rants in the pages of PIQUE, the newsletter of the Secular Humanist Society of New York.  From "An Atheist's Christmas" to Ronald McDonald & 'Touchdown Jesus'", it's all, in the opinion of philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, "...highly opinionated, incisive, always straight-shooting writing, and you won't regret spending some thoughtful- and enjoyable- hours with it." 
"Simply wonderful," says NY Society for Ethical Culture Leader Anne Klaeysen, "I was hooked from the first great story." 


Monday, July 01, 2013

Lights, camera, Religo-Conservative Action! A new Front on the Culture Wars

By Gary Berg-Cross

 

Despite what Former Pennsylvania Senator, and foot-in-mouth 2012 GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum says, I was surprised to read that he has joined the movie industry.  Well  a very faith-based movie studio.  As reported in the Washington Times Rick will be the new CEO of the Dallas, Tx-based EchoLight. 
Wow, Texas is really gathering some conservative culture warriors.  Let the culture wars begin!  Well I guess they haven’t stopped just getting ready to ramp up.

 

Santorum was interviewed by The Christian Post at the International Christian Retail Show at the America's Center Convention Complex in St. Louis, Mo and offered this.


"I've been involved in the culture for a long time.

 


Yes, the culture.  Christian/Catholic culture. Bashing the Gays.  Wars on Women type cultural discussion.  All to be toned down and slid into subliminal, entertaining but progandistic stories. 

“I think we have an opportunity to present good, quality, entertaining content for folks out there who don’t believe that what’s being produced in Hollywood is meeting their values in a way they feel comfortable,” 

To be fair Rick has inspired some media culture. He reportedly inspired 'True Blood' Season 5, so says series creator Alan Ball.

 

If you are behind what the Christian right is selling you can catch up with guidance from Christiancinema.com. They already list best-selling Christian videos.

 1.

                 Last Ounce of Courage - DVD
Last Ounce of Courage - DVD

 2.
This Is Our Time - DVD

 3.
Left Behind: The 4-DVD Boxed Collection

 4.
Kirk Cameron presents: Monumental - DVD

 5.
Love Comes Softly Complete Set - 10 DVD Collection

 6.
The Book of Esther - DVD

 7.
Divination - DVD

 8.
Home Run - DVD

 9.

10.
The Resolution [from the movie COURAGEOUS] - Print
I must admit that I couldn't find reviews of these on Rotten Tomatoes, so I don't know how ripe they are.  

Now EchoLight has entered to help get the word, I mean Word out:

 

EchoLight Studios and the Support Military Foundation have teamed up to help entertain and inspire families around the world. Whether you're a NASCAR fan, or have a loved one in the military, or just love watching movies together, we hope that these movies will move you. 

EchoLight Studios, founded only in 2011, is the first vertically integrated faith-based movie studio to offer production financing, marketing and distribution across all releasing platforms according to a release from the organization. Here’s an example from their site.

 

The Redemption of Henry Myers

It’s not who you are. It’s who you become. EchoLight’s first theatrical release rides into theaters this fall. 

It’s already in the unholy, holy alliance business having partnered with Lynchburg, Va.-based Liberty University to produce films from that school’s cinematic arts program. First a stream of Liberty U lawyers, now this.  


I know what films the T-party Reps will be screening in coming years.

I sure hope we don’t have an EchoLight Film Fest for a while.

Images


EchoLight images, from their site.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Belief, Faith, Scandal, and Credibility


This is a difficult post to write.

I have a lot of friends on Facebook for whom I have a great deal of respect, with whom I have ranted, commiserated with and discussed numerous controversial topics with throughout the election last year.  We have laughed, cried, ranted indignantly and collectively derided the right wing throughout that process.

We bonded.  We became a group of friends, most of whom have never even met in meatspace.

Quite a few of us are religious, and many of us live in Georgia, a very openly religious part of the country.  That makes this whole post hard to write and hard to put online, because I know that it will upset a number of you.

But it needs to be said, and this subject needs to be examined by every person of faith, especially in this modern atmosphere of religious contention.  Especially since so many Americans are, like myself, finally coming out and announcing our existence and the reasons for our disbelief.

So, in advance, I apologize if this offends anybody, it is not meant to be descriptive of any one person.  It is descriptive of a process people go through which allows us to believe stuff without serious examination or thought.  Yes, I know many of you study your religion.  You follow study guides, you go to bible study groups, you know a lot about what your religious denomination believes.

But you don't go beyond the lines.  You stay inside the boundaries the leaders of your sect have set and do not "color" outside those lines.  Like good students, you stay inside the lines!  You have been taught, from early childhood for most of you, to be the christians you are.  Your faith, I know, varies in strength and intensity from person to person, and even perhaps, from time to time.  Many of you probably don't quite go along with every dot and tittle of your church's theology - few Americans do!  We all have our own little "theology" we build up over time as we learn, share and discuss our beliefs with family, friends and fellow churchgoers.  It doesn't always line up with what our church leaders would have us believe.  No problem, of course - that rarely rocks the boat, clerics are used to that.

As long as you believe.   That is what counts.  That is what will ensure your entry into the kingdom of heaven.  Oh, and your money.  That helps too.

I, of course, am not one of the believers in that theology.  All of you probably know that, since you are here and have noticed the name of my blog!  I have written about my disbelief and the process of how I got here before, and will not belabor that point now.  I just want to talk about another point that I think needs to be examined.

As one learns things as a human being, beginning in early childhood, we gradually learn that older humans often have superior knowledge about the world around us.  Our parents tell us the stove is hot, and lo and behold, when we doubtfully touch it, dang, it does hurt!  It's a learning process we all know well.

So, when our elders tell us about their religion, we are already inclined to believe they know what they are talking about.  And, as I've mentioned before, since the proof is so far away from being available (which is being dead, after all), as young folks, we kind of let that slip.  (That stove lesson is kind of hard to forget.)

Preachers and priests are given such a high measure of respect in our society (and most human societies) and automatically get our ears, since, as men (and sometimes women) of god, they sure ought to know what they are talking about, right?  So the lessons are reinforced, we grow up and we go to church.

We believe.  Joyfully, nestled in the comfortable bosom of our family and community, happy in the support and friendship of that community, we listen, learn, and teach the kids we have on our own as we grow up and mature.

Yeah, I know that's a bit idealized, but bear with me.

The key to all this is the fact that with rare exceptions, as a child, a young adult and eventually as an adult, you trust those older than you and and those placed into positions of authority to know the subject.  To tell you the truth.  After all, you are talking about your immortal soul, right?  That is worth paying some attention to, if what we know is right.

But, what if it isn't?  Now, don't stop here.  This is an exercise in mental flexibility.  You don't have to believe anything to do this, but again, please, bear with me.

What if all of those adults who have been teaching you everything you know about religion have been, without exception, either mislead themselves, mistaken, or are out and out lying to you?  I know, that is an incredible thought.  In order for that to be true, every single adult throughout the history of the christian church would have had to have been similarly deceived, if not, simply kept quiet to stay alive. (That is not a derogatory term, as I use it here, merely descriptive - deception can be quite accidental, if passed on in good faith.)

Note that I do NOT mean dishonest.  There may be particular individuals who may be - we'll get to that.  But most could have been merely lead down that well described primrose path, and are themselves passing along information sincerely believed and held in faith.

At this point, I'm going to insert another trigger warning.  Some of the information I will link to here is regarding news about the Roman Catholic Church.  I am using it because it is current, relevant and (as read as a whole) very instructive, while being, in my opinion, representative of the entire religious experience worldwide.  No religion isn't faced with scandals like this, on a regular basis in this new world of instant information, easily disseminated.  None of this is meant to single out the RCC as being singular in this problem, but remember, the christian theology began with the RCC.  Everybody who is a christian today got that information originally through an historical connection to the RCC.

Take a look at these three stories.  Go ahead and read them before you read any more of this article.  They are directly relevant to my further remarks.  I'll wait....(you might want to go get a strong drink when you are done.  I think I'll join you!  A good strong Scotch.)

'We Kept Quiet about Sexual Abuse for Too Long'

German Catholic Church Cancels Inquiry

Bishop's Extravagant Behavior Triggers Uproar

Ok, finished?  Got that drink?  Cool, then, bottoms up!  Here's to life!  L'Chaim!

Now, where was I?  Oh, yeah.  The stories.

Shocking, no?  Three stories about the RCC and its refusal to do what amounts to one simple thing:

Obey its own rules.

Yep, that's what all that boils down to.  "Do as I say, not as I do."

According to the bible I grew up reading, Jesus told us to live simply, love our enemies, give to the poor and be honest.  Yet, to this day, the history of the christian church, both Protestant and Catholic, is one of greed, violence, classism, lies, deceit and sexual perversion.  The leaders of the church live in wealth and grandiose ostentatiousness - the pope himself sits on a golden throne.  Yet, his representative the bishop of Limburg, told his parishioners,
"Renewal begins where the efforts toward making due with less are made," he has instructed them. "The person of faith is dirt poor and rich in mercy," he once said in a Christmas sermon. And on the Assumption, he declared: "Whoever experiences poverty in person will discover the true greatness of God."
I don't know about you, but my mama told me very often as I grew up, "Your actions speak so loudly I cannot hear what you say!"

Taken together, the actions of generations of church leaders, of both Protestant and Catholic have not only shouted, but screamed, magnified by those generations into a pervading howl so loud their teachings are as quiet as a minnow's fart.

This issue goes directly to credibility.

Yes, I know, you read the bible.  You get your faith from reading its pages.  But who, exactly, wrote those pages?  Who has approved their message, their wording, the printing, dissemination and their teaching?  Those same church leaders who have spent centuries living in wealth, luxury and the hard earned tithes of the masses of poor christians told that in some measure, tithing 10% gets you an increased chance of entry to heaven.  (Do the words "conflict of interest" have any meaning any more?)

Generations of church leaders have refined that message, taught it to more generations of good, honest priests who have labored all their lives, often in tough conditions, to teach that word to those poor masses of humanity.  Very few of those priests got so high as to enjoy the luxury of Rome.

If you have listened to some of my rantings here, you will have read about Bart Ehrman, a biblical scholar who has written numerous books on the bible and its various quirks and its history.  He will tell you many things about that history which would surprise you.  Things like the four Gospels whose writers are unknown.  Yes, your local preacher will tell you they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but HE was taught that indeed, the authors are unknown, and the names so assigned are there for convenience only.  But he won't tell you.

He won't tell you that all but probably four or five of the letters of Paul are forgeries, and their messages which shaped the modern christian church and its theology of today are vastly different from the ones they think were written by just one man, the one we call Paul.  He won't tell you that the church's message of misogyny is contained in those forgeries, as is the message of hatred for the Jews.

He won't tell you that the last book in the bible, the Revelation according to John, was written by a bishop, exiled on an island in the Mediterranean by Nero, who wrote that book as an anti-Roman screed and was considered mad at the time.  Nor will they tell you that it was not added to the bible until all the rest were already there, and some churches, like the Romanian Church, do not include it in their canon at all.

He won't tell you that, even though he knows - he was taught all these things in seminary.

Credibility.  "The quality of being trusted and believed in."

Truly.  Can you truly believe what you have been taught by people who have themselves been taught flawed and/or altered ideals?  Ideals which the very institution which teaches them refuses to adhere to itself?  Ideals which have been refined, altered and changed over 1800 years to conform with the  changing social framework of laws and values of the larger society for at least half of that time?

There are reasons why almost a fifth of Americans do not self identify as christians.  Many of them are newly coming out as not religious, and many kind of weasel themselves into the category of "spiritual", probably to avoid being seen as atheists.  There is a reason why as many as 50-90% of some European countries are no longer christian.

We are there because we can no longer believe the clerics.  We cannot believe things which are taught by people who cannot live according to their own rules and do everything possible to avoid being caught not doing it.

They are not credible.  Their stories are not believable, their holy books are not anything close to being holy, as changed, altered and often forged as they are.  We cannot abide exposing our children to the damagingly violent stories of the Old Testament with its themes of misogyny, slavery, genocide and rape.  We cannot abide allowing our children to be taught that they are flawed from birth, damaged by evil even before birth, and taught that they are only worth saving by being "children of god".  We will not allow our children to be taught that their lives are worth nothing if they do not worship this god.

We will not allow our children to be taught that they can only be good because they are taught to be good by this divine, invisible being, and that without this being, they would be evil, and without self control.

I know, a lot of Progressive churches do not teach all of these things.  But many others do.  The Evangelical movement is growing, and it teaches all of these things and worse.  It is exporting its message of hatred to Africa, where children are burned as witches and gays are being killed just for being gay.

We cannot allow our children to be indoctrinated into a religion whose tenets, running the gamut from love and sweet giving to hatred and torture, are being taught from the same book!

It is time to educate ourselves.  It is time to search our minds into why we allow ourselves to be led to believe things by people who apparently do not believe the very things they would have us believe, and whose lives exhibit ideals opposite from what they teach.

As human beings, we only have one life.  We have to make the best of that life we can.  We need to leave the world better than how we found it.  We need to teach our children that their lives are worth something, that the purpose of their lives are given purpose by what they do, by who they keep company with and how they conduct their lives.

It is time to grow up as a society.  It is time for us, as individuals, to take control of our own minds and our own destinies.

It is time to move this country forward.



Robert Ahrens
The Cybernetic Atheist

Friday, July 20, 2012

Battles Discussing the Elites -America Lite & Twilight of the Elites




by Gary Berg-Cross
In this book-crowded summer of contentious reads David Gelernter has added to the pile with his America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats). One may agree with some of the broad statements: "The nation is filling inexorably with Airheads, nominally educated yet ignorant; trained and groomed like prize puppies. " But wait a minute who does he say are the puppies? Good liberals. Oh, I had some other airheads in mind. Did Gelernter follow the Republican primary?
 
The book's already the object of battling reviews. The National Review cautiously likes it and talks about it's argument of Dismantling of a Culture - "America’s elites now disdain the rest of America." 

They interviewed a disgruntled Gelenter, who was happy to add to his earlier arguments from Americanism:The Fourth Great Western Religion.
In that earlier work Gelenter asked what it means to “believe” in America? Why do we always speak of our country as having a mission or purpose that is higher than other nations? I think our founders gave us some hope for this with things like separation of church and state.  But David argues that modern liberals have "invested a great deal in the notion that America was founded as a secular state, with religion relegated to the private sphere." So to Gelernter, America is not secular at all, but a powerful religious idea—that males its sort of a religion in its own right. What kind you ask? Gelernter says that what we have come to call “Americanism” (as in American Exceptionalism) is in fact a secular version of Zionism. This is scary language to some since Zionism has produced a conservative state based on religion. And it attitude towards the use of the military option and settling disputes with neighbors leaves something to be desired.

His new book takes off from there to continue the attack on intellectual elites, a topic I've blogged on earlier.

"In a piddling few decades, the world’s most powerful, influential cultural establishment happened to get demolished and rebuilt from the ground up. What had been basically a Christian, patriotic, family-loving, politically moderate part of society became contemptuous of biblical religion, of patriotism, of the family, of American greatness. The American cultural elite used to resemble (more or less) the rest of America. Today it disdains the rest of America. That’s a revolution."

A good counter arguement to Gelenter's is offered in Russell Jacoby's review of the book in an article called Dreaming of a World With No Intellectuals.

As he notes Gelernter highlights the role of American Jews as a way to trace the enormous cultural change and its consequences in higher education. But Gelenter's argument seems to be one of selective data and does not live up to comparative analysis as suggested in the quote below from Jacoby's review which includes quotes from the book.
"Up through the 60s, the WASP establishment excluded Jews from elite universities. But by 1970, Jews had pushed their way into student bodies, faculties, and administrations. The consequences? Again, easy. Jews are both leftist and aggressive. "Naturally, we would expect that an increasing Jewish presence at top colleges" would imprint the schools with those qualities. "And this is just what happened." Colleges and universities became more leftist as well as more "thrusting" and "belligerent."...
"Gelernter is Jewish, and it is not likely that a non-Jew would airily argue that obnoxious leftist Jews have taken over elite higher education. But Gelernter does so with enthusiasm untempered by facts. Aside from quoting Jewish neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz as sources, Gelernter does not offer a single example of what he is writing about. Who are these belligerent leftist Jewish professors? Anthony Grafton? Steven Pinker? Richard Posner? Martha Nussbaum? Perhaps Alan Dershowitz?
Moreover, the entire formulation remains vague. What does it mean that colleges have acquired "a more thrusting, belligerent tone"? The whole college? The administration? The students? One might imagine that Brandeis University, founded in 1948 by Jews, would be a perfect example to verify Gelernter's argument. Is it loud and leftist? Gelernter does not mention it."

Chris Hayes has also written a book this summer on called Twilight of the Elites. In Hayes' view the problem is less ideological of left and right and more of elite self interest which detracts from solving problems. "Part of the problem is that this kind of elite solidarity, this self-protection impulse, it stretches across the public and private sector, and it stretches across, in some way, ideological lines," (More on Hayes book, perhaps in a later post.)

It would be great to get Chris and Gelernter to debate this point and one might hope we could see this on Chris's weekend show Up with Chris Hayes. If he invites Susan Jacoby to the discussion it should be world class. She was great when the Up show discussed the Reason Rally this Spring. He could also invite Janine R. Wedel who could discuss her idea of Shadow Elite - see
The Scandal of Anti-Intellectualism and Elites.


Picture/Image Credits

America Lite:http://www.writersreps.com/America-Lite
American Zionism: http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/history/zionism/news.php?q=1341887958
Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy : http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/07/11/review-christopher-hayes-twilight-elites-america-after-meritocracy
Why Are Jews Liberals?:http://www.toqonline.com/blog/sailer-on-podhoretz/

Monday, February 20, 2012

All Male Panels and the Culture Wars


By Gary Berg-Cross

Thursday on Capitol Hill in Washington Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, invited a panel for a four hour plus hearing on what he called a “federal rule's impact on freedom of religion and conscience” before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the House of Representatives. What we saw in the now infamous first panel was a Lutheran, 2 Baptist clergymen and an Orthodox rabbi who joined a Roman Catholic bishop on an all male panel. They proceeded to tell gathered lawmakers that President. Obama’s latest policy of shifting the responsibility for paying for such things as contraceptives and prenatal screenings from religious institutions to their health insurers was unworkable. I guess they are policy wonks too. But they had much more to say about their fears. The compromise did not allay their concerns about government entanglement with religion. In the words one hears from Republican candidates, its more of a broad, moral, "theological" argument. That seemed to be the big topic although to many it was about women’s rights to health care including contraception.
Why no women on the first panel? Well according to California Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), who heads the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, it was all clear. She is not a member of the clergy, unlike the five men who did testify in the first panel. Representative Joe Walsh, Republican of Illinois, defended the choice this by dodging from individual rights to some vague combination that mixed organized religion rights and freedom:
“This is not about women. This is not about contraceptives. This is about religious freedom.”
The representative might have been better informed on such things if he had attended Rob Boston’s recent talk on what the Founders really intended here.
As someone at CNN said “welcome to the culture wars 2.0, where the front lines now are religious freedom and contraceptives.” This indeed may be a political gambit to switch the topic from a winning liberal issue on preventive and women’s health to a cultural-religious one. That was somewhat of Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va) who addressed the 5 very clerical men during the first half of the hearing:
"I believe today’s hearing is a sham. I have to believe each of you came here in good faith." But he added, "Surely you are being used for a political agenda."
I’ve now seen pictures of the 5 men in a number of venues, but I knew little about them. Who were they? Well here are their names and affiliations:
  1. Rev. William E. Lori, Roman Catholic Bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., who testified on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in opposition to the rule.

  1. Reverend Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and moral philosophy professor. (wow, a Rev. Dr. !)
  1. C. Ben Mitchell, Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University in Tennessee
  1. Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, Director Straus Center of Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, and
  1. Ethics professor Craig Mitchell of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
What they had to say had quite a bit of dog whistling. Lori, the Catholic bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut, testified on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which denounced the compromise last week, saying it still raised "serious moral concerns." Bishop Lori is known as a “conservative cleric who has carried out controversial church mandates in the past. Some critics, however, say he does not question the church hierarchy and, at times, has acted harshly in order to please his superiors (from Wikipedia).” I think that Stephan Colbert did a reasonable job of laying out the hypocrisy of the Bishops on the contraception topic.
The Rev. Matthew Harrison, president of the large Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, told lawmakers that the St. Louis-based denomination:
"stand(s) with our friends in the Catholic Church" in opposition to a recent government ruling on contraception.
Harrison went on to say that the synod's opposition to "abortion-causing drugs" was one reason the denomination maintains its own health plan. He’s worried that the provision in the government's
new ruling would "grandfather" the Missouri Synod's plan, meaning its 50,000 members would not have to participate in the new mandate. Isn’t that a solution?
No, apparently he wants a total capitulation that imposes his values on others. It’s about moral conscience as defined by organized groups. It’s about violating the consciences of these group members, who feel they can impose their values on others. Sort of like the White Man’s moral burden idea. We should understand what a solution is to group like this.
C. Ben Mitchell of Union University told the committee the rule "is an unconscionable intrusion by the state into the consciences of American citizens."

"Contrary to portrayals in some of the popular media, this is not just a Catholic issue," said Mitchell, Graves professor of moral philosophy at the Baptist school in Jackson, Tenn. "All people of faith - and even those who claim no faith - have a stake in whether or not the government can violate the consciences of its citizenry. Religious liberty and the freedom to obey one's conscience is also not just a Baptist issue. It's an American issue enshrined in our founding documents."

There they go with that slanted view of the Founders again. They should have come to Rob Boston's talk to hear what the Constitution says and what the Founders thought about freedom of religion.
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik an Orthodox rabbi described in an Israeli paper as of impeccable pedigree at Yeshiva University. He testified orthodoxically which I guess is the old fashion word for fundamentalist:
"The administration impedes religious liberty by unilaterally redefining what it means to be religious." “The putative accommodation is no accommodation at all,” said the rabbi, from NYC:
“Religious organizations would still be obligated to provide employees with an insurance policy that facilitates acts violating the organization’s religious tenets.”
It’s all about violation and what it means to be religious? This seems like more than a bit of a stretch. As a BBC article points out Judeo-Christian ideas about contraception come from church teachings rather than scripture, as the Bible has little to say about the subject. But then again the rabbi is probably more comfortable in a religio-centric national environment.
Craig Mitchell, associate professor of Christian ethics at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas told members the requirement
"is wrong not just for religious conservatives.It's wrong for all Americans, because it takes away the freedom of the citizens while emboldening the federal government to do whatever it wants,",. "It's wrong because it violates the Constitution. It's wrong because it violates religious liberty. It's wrong because it forces people to violate their consciences. ... This ruling is just plain wrong for America."
There’s lots of culture war bricks to be thrown about in rhetoric like this and I hope that we are saved by some sensible discussion. As part of more discussion we might get to the uncomfortable issues of contraception and sexual activity.
This very recent discussion which started as a health care discussion now seems like a regressive, perhaps reactionary one, with a subtext of group’s attitude toward sex and sexual morality. We had moved towards a more progressive attitude from our Puritan days. Even mainstream religious groups had come to see sex as other than a pure danger. Some Christians moved to the view sex as one of God's great gifts. One can rationalize this since sexual bonding helps preserve the institution of marriage and birth control helps mitigate the stresses caused by too many children.
This pragmatic view of mainstream Protestant churches on the use of birth control lead to a more tolerant policy of quietly letting its followers use birth control as their own consciences dictated as opposed to a doctrinaire view centrally imposed.
In a tide of fundamentalism we’re back to an intolerant and centralized view with imposed morality. As a result modern family planning/birth control "cannot be spoken of without repugnance. " It's now denounced as "demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare." All of which means that Culture War Part 2, with such things as silencing of women, may be with us for this political campaign period at least. We should all gear ourselves up with well-considered, humanistic moral arguments.