Heard it put late last night / early this morning that Mother Theresa was / is a quality role model for feminists. Given her status as a fundamentalist with questionable priorities, backwards medical practices, and an obsession with denying to women the tools of their empowerment, such a bold claim confused me.
Christianity in practice strikes me as demanding forgiveness of the excesses of man while restricting woman so she may have none. This dichotomy furthers to the rich and poor, the powerful and the average, etc. What better tool for social control than one which says turn the other cheek to those who abuse, but you yourself must remain humble? Religion’s power to be simultaneously masochistic and solipisistic amazes me: God has a plan for you, and he created the universe with you in mind — but he would really prefer it if you stay poor and miserable and not inquire so much about the man behind the curtain.
Such a philosophy can only be preached reasonably by people expecting the world to end very soon. That, while your husband will be forgiven if he drinks too much and beats you, it is essential you not divorce him. Separation “pains the heart,” as Mother Teresa wrote while campaigning against the free dissolution of marriage in Ireland. “What God has put together, let no one divide.” Nevermind, at one point, God presumably assembled your face.
Thus, acquiesce to man his indulgence, allow him his sin in the name of self — but, in the name of God, woman must remain chained to that cycle of reproduction which most closely resembles an animal’s. Abortion, according to the Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, afterall, is the “greatest destroyer of peace today.“ It is murder, and contraception its equivalent. But man’s dominion is transient, and your suffering, noble.
Demanding ever-greater attitudes of patience towards tyranny while fighting every method a woman has to free herself might be worth the sacrifice if you disguise the intent and guarantee eternal rewards. Indeed, it appears the false promise of paradise is incredibly satiating. But the results on this Earth will always skew in favor of the powerful.
What, then, of the power of the fairer sex? It is said, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” — and her contempt may even know nothing of forgiveness. But, some day, if not by time or boredom or perspective, life itself will end all frustration by way of death, so one need only placate woman’s rage until the day arrives. And while Hell may not possess such fury for the job, it offers permanence.
As the delusion of eternity fades, therefore, it becomes apparent the arguments of the religious have no other leg to stand on, or stick to swing. It is an inherent failure which prevents even a reasonable assertion from gaining recognition as such in the mind that denies the original premise. Because it can never be enough to see the uses of technology while cautioning against its implications — rather, one’s convictions must be absolute when the soul is involved. While recent embryology, and the advances of medical science itself, continue to push back the point of viability — making abortion, both, less necessary and more disgusting — the religious are discredited before they begin.
Just as alcohol is a drug that secular America should imbibe with much more caution, abortion is a sobering reality. But we once let the teetotalers have their way on the former. The tragedy following that immense religious success is well known. The irony is they never recovered.